Women’s Health Equals Global Health: A Radical Proposal

Jane Roberts

We need a peaceful, purposeful, stubborn and obstinate revolution.   

What follows is a radical proposal from a grassroots activist who wants to see a whole new framework for global health. It was written because the Washington DC Global Health Council conference next June is going to emphasize the health related Millennium Development Goals and the Women Deliver Conference also in Washington next June is going to again bring world attention to the subject of maternal mortality with a heavy emphasis on family planning as a great saver of both women’s and children’s lives.   


In much of the world, if you are born a girl, there is often commiseration instead of celebration at your birth. Or earlier you may have been aborted for your gender or your life may be purposefully snuffed out in your first days of life.  In your first five years, you may die of simple neglect. There are between 60 and 100 million of you missing in the world today simply because of your gender.


Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


And yet, no human being has ever lived who has not come from the womb of a woman. Right now on this earth, 6.8 billion people are living because a woman did something quite brave. She carried a pregnancy to term even though she probably had some difficult days. She is the giver and keeper of life. In fact, I say this rather facetiously but if every man on the planet disappeared but there were frozen sperm in a sperm bank somewhere, humanity could start over. If every woman disappeared, well, you get my point.


So from a biological scientific point of view, you women of the world are la crème de la crème, the cat’s pyjamas. You are it! But at the present time individuals, governments, religions, cultures and customs do not accord you full equality. In fact, gender inequality is the moral scourge of the age, so huge in its implications that it is almost too big to see, almost invisible.


I have with me a little writing booklet from a United Nations Population Fund sponsored elementary school in Senegal, The times tables are on the back and on the front, in French, this message: Little girls have as much right to food, education, and health care as little boys.


We should all be in a state of utter disbelief that such a thing needs to be said. We all know that girl children (often along with their mothers) eat last and least. What implication for health? After all food and water are the basics of health. What if the world committed to making sure every girl had enough nourishing food and clean water. Wouldn’t that in itself do wonders for global health and the future of coming generations? Because quite frankly, if this were the case for girls, it would also be the case for boys. It would carry over!


We all know that little girls often do not have equal opportunity to attend school. Equality of education is a primary component of the Millennium Development Goals both for girls and women. We know that two thirds of the illiterate people on the planet today are women and girls.  Illiteracy equals ill health. Illiteracy equals poverty which equals ill health. What if the world committed itself to the equivalent of a high school education for every girl?  If available for girls and women, it would carry over to boys and men. It would be an immeasurable contribution to health. Thus Millennium Development Goals 2 and 3 although they speak of education, are also much related to health.


What if every girl and woman on the planet were given access to health? For instance what if every baby were more or less guaranteed a birth weight of 7 to 8 pounds and to be AIDS-free. That would give every baby a good start. Imagine the revolution in health that this guarantee would imply. It would imply a world commitment to everything contained in the field of reproductive health. It would imply that early marriage would disappear. It would mean the end of FGM. It would probably imply that every pregnancy was wanted, that ante-natal care was universal, that every birth was safe, (immediate emergency obstetric care on the spot) i.e. no more maternal mortality and no more obstetric fistula. It would mean that family planning would be universally accessible as promised in human rights documents (particularly ICPD in Cairo) which have been more honored in the breach than in the implementation. It would mean that the huge toll of unsafe abortion (70,000 deaths and 5 million injuries, hemorrhages, and infections every year) would disappear. The acronym PAC (post-abortion care) would disappear. The fact that abortion remains illegal especially in the developing world results from women’s disempowerment politically and culturally. Gender inequality is the underlying reason that universal access to family planning and access to safe abortion have not been realized.


If the world committed to vaccinate every girl for childhood diseases, believe me, the boys would get vaccinated too. If the world committed to malaria bed nets for all girls and pregnant mothers, all boys and men would have them too. And if the world committed to women’s education, health, and human rights, and made the necessary moral, financial, legal, and cultural commitments to gender equality in all realms of civil society, this planet would be a different place and women and girls and men and boys would benefit equally.  Women’s health equals men’s health and global health.


We must talk a little about the issue of human population. The basic reason why there are 6.8 billion of us now is that “making babies” is enjoyable and a natural human activity. Raising children is a much desired and rewarding activity for most people.


Yet, in the 21st century, human population has run up against the carrying capacity of the planet for food, water, and a life sustaining environment. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN has just come out with a finding that there are 1 billion hungry people on the planet now. Believe me, women and girls are more than 50 percent of this number! With the percentages of young people on the planet today, the UN Population Division predicts a world population of 9.1 billion by the year 2050. Can anyone seriously doubt that this will be a humanitarian disaster of immense proportions particularly for health? 


If you take Africa alone, the UN says that with present fertility rates the population of Africa will double in 40 years to 2 billion. This is unconscionable. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, southeast Asia are in trouble on population.  The global health community can not now insure health for all human beings. How will it do so with another 2.3 billion people, the great percentage of whom are going to come from the least and less developed countries who now offer very low levels of education and health and health infrastructure such as sanitation. What are the health implications of a lack of sanitation? Huge, absolutely huge! And people, to be honest, the status of women in most of these countries is low. This is no accident. There is a little bit of cause and effect here.


Poverty equals ill health. According to the UNICEF “Gender Equality: Big Picture Report for 2007”, women perform 66 percent of the world’s work, produce 50 percent of food, but own 1 percent of property. Women receive only 10 percent of worldwide income and perform more than 70 percent of unpaid work around the globe. Two thirds of the poorest of the poor in the world are women, often women with children. For health to come for women, the feminization of poverty must be addressed. Changes would  emphasize girls’ education, gender equality and all of its legal ramifications , economic opportunity and reproductive health and choices. Bref, as they say in French, less poverty for women equals a better life for all.


I have never seen the mental health costs of gender inequality being addressed. There would be huge room for research here.


The world is seeing more and more conflicts over resources. These conflicts often result in violence of all kinds perpetrated against women. Violence against women is a public health nightmare.  Increasingly rape is being used as a weapon of war. The public health implications of GBV (gender based violence) (it has its own acronym!) are astronomical, astronomical not being a term used by health professionals but by this grassroots activist retired French teacher.


And when there are typhoons, floods, droughts, 70 percent of those who die are women, often pregnant or with children. The United Nations Population Fund and the Women’s Environmental and Development Agency WEDO have issued a report on the necessity of taking gender issues into account when adopting climate change policies.


Here are some observations. Which comes first, maternal or child health?  The Millennium Development Goals have cutting child mortality by two thirds as number 4 and improving maternal health as number 5.  I would reverse the order. Improving maternal health is a prerequisite for cutting child mortality. And obviously cutting maternal mortality cuts child mortality big time!


Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn in their groundbreaking book “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide” share the stories of women caught up in trafficking and sexual enslavement. The root causes of the global human trafficking phenomenon are poverty and illiteracy which result in powerlessness. One must attack the root causes.


If you look up www.un.org/millennium goals and click on number 5, the last line of target two says: “An unmet need for family planning undermines the achievement of several other goals.”  I think it undermines all of the MDGs, every single one. But family planning is controversial. When I see the opposition to family planning, let alone to legal abortion, on the part of the religious right in this country I see mind-boggling hypocrisy. They all use family planning. Family planning equals health. With millions of women unable to be the decision makers when it comes to sexual activity, family planning is the crucial element for women’s empowerment. It allows women and girls to go to school, to learn, and to earn both money and respect and to play an active role in civil society. The health benefits of family planning for people, the planet, and peace are so vast as to be almost invisible.


Hillary Clinton at her hearings to become Secretary of State said: Of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls who comprise the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid.


Ban Ki-moon says: In women, the world has the most significant but untapped potential for development and peace. 


Stephen Lewis: I challenge you to enter the fray against gender inequality.  There is no more honorable or productive calling. There is nothing of greater import in this world.  All roads lead from women to social change.


I say: When the world takes care of women, women take care of the world. That is my radical grassroots proposal. That the peoples of the world commit in every way imaginable to women’s health and empowerment and equality. The pay-off would put people and the planet on a sustainable course. Women and girls, men and boys would benefit equally. In my little book “34 Million Friends of the Women of the World” I say: “We have to imagine a world where all people, men and women, in equal partnership, with no artificial legal, cultural, religious, or economic barriers, work together for the greater good. We must imagine a world where all people regardless of their gender are judged, as Dr. Martin Luther King might have said, only by the content of their character.”


At the 2007 Women Deliver conference in London, the Lancet put out a special edition with this message on the front: “Since the human race began, women have delivered for society.  It is time now for the world to deliver for women.” 


We need people, men and women together, who will DELIVER for women, who will climb over the barricades, in a non-violent struggle for enormous change. We have to make it happen. We need a peaceful, purposeful, stubborn and obstinate REVOLUTION! 


Analysis Human Rights

From Protected Class to High-Priority Target: How the ‘System Is Rigged’ Against Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Tina Vasquez

Vulnerable, undocumented youth who pose no real threat are being stripped of their right to an education and instead sit in detention awaiting deportation.

This is the first article in Rewire’s two-part series about the U.S. immigration system’s effects on unaccompanied children.

Earlier this month, three North Carolina high school students were released from a Lumpkin, Georgia, detention center after spending more than six months awaiting what seemed like their inevitable fate: deportation back to conditions in Central America that threatened their lives.

Wildin David Guillen Acosta, Josue Alexander Soriano Cortez, and Yefri Sorto-Hernandez were released on bail in the span of one week, thanks to an overwhelming community effort involving pro bono attorneys and bond money. However, not everyone targeted under the same government operation has been reprieved. For example, by the time reports emerged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had detained Acosta on his way to school in Durham, North Carolina, the government agency had already quietly deported four other young people from the state, including a teenage girl from Guatemala who attended the same school.

Activated in January, that program—Operation Border Guardian—continues to affect the lives of hundreds of Central American migrants over the age of 18 who came to the United States as unaccompanied children after January 2014. Advocates believe many of those arrested under the operation are still in ICE custody.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson has said that the goal of Operation Border Guardian is to send a message to those in Central America considering seeking asylum in the United States. But it’s not working, as Border Patrol statistics have shown. Furthermore, vulnerable, undocumented youth who pose no real threat are being stripped of their right to an education and instead sit in detention awaiting deportation. These youth arrived at the border in hopes of qualifying for asylum, but were unable to succeed in an immigration system that seems rigged against them.

“The laws are really complicated and [young people] don’t have the community support to navigate this really hostile, complex system. That infrastructure isn’t there and unless we support asylum seekers and other immigrants in this part of the country, we’ll continue to see asylum seekers and former unaccompanied minors receive their deportation orders,” said Julie Mao, the enforcement fellow at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:


“A Grossly Misnamed” Operation

In January, ICE conducted a series of raids that spanned three southern states—Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas—targeting Central American asylum seekers. The raids occurred under the orders of Johnson, who has taken a hardline stance against the more than 100,000 families who have sought asylum in the United States. These families fled deadly gang violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in recent years. In El Salvador, in particular, over 400 children were murdered by gang members and police officers during the first three months of 2016, doubling the country’s homicide rate, which was already among the highest in the world.

ICE picked up some 121 people in the early January raids, primarily women and their young children. Advocates argue many of those arrested were detained unlawfully, because as people who experienced severe trauma and exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety, and depression, they were disabled as defined under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and ICE did not provide reasonable accommodations to ensure disabled people were not denied meaningful access to benefits or services.

Just a few weeks later, on January 23, ICE expanded the raids’ focus to include teenagers under Operation Border Guardian, which advocates said represented a “new low.”

The media, too, has also criticized DHS for its seemingly senseless targeting of a population that normally would be considered refugees. The New York Times called Operation Border Guardian “a grossly misnamed immigration-enforcement surge that went after people this country did not need to guard against.”

In response to questions about its prioritization of former unaccompanied minors, an ICE spokesperson told Rewire in an emailed statement: “As the secretary has stated repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration. If someone was apprehended at the border, has been ordered removed by an immigration court, has no pending appeal, and does not qualify for asylum or other relief from removal under our laws, he or she must be sent home. We must and we will enforce the law in accordance with our enforcement priorities.”

DHS reports that 336 undocumented Central American youth have been detained in the operation. It’s not clear how many of these youth have already been deported or remain in ICE custody, as the spokesperson did not respond to that question by press time.

Acosta, Cortez, Sorto-Hernandez, and three other North Carolina teenagersSantos Geovany Padilla-Guzman, Bilmer Araeli Pujoy Juarez, Pedro Arturo Salmeron—have become known as the NC6 and the face of Operation Border Guardian, a designation they likely would have not signed up for.

Advocates estimate that thousands of deportations of low-priority migrants—those without a criminal history—occur each week. What newly arrived Central American asylum seekers like Acosta could not have known was that the federal government had been laying the groundwork for their deportations for years.

Asylum Seekers Become “High-Priority Cases”

In August 2011, the Obama administration announced it would begin reviewing immigration cases individually, allowing ICE to focus its resources on “high-priority cases.” The assumption was that those who pose a threat to public safety, for example, would constitute the administration’s highest priority, not asylum-seeking high school students.

But there was an indication from DHS that asylum-seeking students would eventually be targeted and considered high-priority. After Obama’s announcement, ICE released a statement outlining who would constitute its “highest priorities,” saying, “Specifically individuals who pose a threat to public safety such as criminal aliens and national security threats, as well as repeat immigration law violators and recent border entrants.”

In the years since, President Obama has repeatedly said “recent border crossers” are among the nation’s “highest priorities” for removal—on par with national security threats. Those targeted would be migrants with final orders of removal who, according to the administration, had received their day in court and had no more legal avenues left to seek protection. But, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported, “recent border entrant” is a murky topic, and it doesn’t appear as if all cases are being reviewed individually as President Obama said they would.

“Recent border entrant” can apply to someone who has been living in the United States for three years, and a border removal applies “whenever ICE deports an individual within three years of entry—regardless of whether the initial entry was authorized—or whenever an individual is apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP),” explained Thomas Homan, the head of ICE’s removal operations in a 2013 hearing with Congress, the ACLU reported.

Chris Rickerd, policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, added that “[b]ecause CBP refuses to screen the individuals it apprehends for their ties to the U.S., and DHS overuses procedures that bypass deportation hearings before a judge, many ‘border removals’ are never fully assessed to determine whether they have a legal right to stay.”

Over the years, DHS has only ramped up the department’s efforts to deport newly arrived immigrants, mostly from Central America. As the Los Angeles Times reported, these deportations are “an attempt by U.S. immigration officials to send a message of deterrence to Central America and avoid a repeat of the 2014 crisis when tens of thousands of children from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala arrived at the U.S. border.”

This is something Mao takes great issue with.

“These raids that we keep seeing are being done in order to deter another wave of children from seeking asylum—and that is not a permissible reason,” Mao said. “You deport people based on legality, not as a way of scaring others. Our country, in this political moment, is terrorizing young asylum seekers as a way of deterring others from presenting themselves at the border, and it’s pretty egregious.”

There is a direct correlation between surges of violence in the Northern Triangle—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—and an uptick in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the United States. El Salvador, known as the murder capital of the word, recently saw an explosion of gang violence. Combine that with the possible re-emergence of so-called death squads and it’s clear why the number of Salvadoran family units apprehended on the southern border increased by 96 percent from 2015 to 2016, as Fusion reported.

Much like Mao, Elisa Benitez, co-founder of the immigrants rights’ organization Alerta Migratoria NC, believes undocumented youth are being targeted needlessly.

“They should be [considered] low-priority just because they’re kids, but immigration is classifying them at a very high level, meaning ICE is operating like this is a population that needs to be arrested ASAP,” Benitez said.

The Plight of Unaccompanied Children

Each member of the NC6 arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied child fleeing violence in their countries of origin. Acosta, for example, was threatened by gangs in his native Honduras and feared for his life. These young people should qualify as refugees based on those circumstances under international law. In the United States, after they present themselves at the border, they have to prove to an immigration judge they have a valid asylum claim—something advocates say is nearly impossible for a child to do with no understanding of the immigration system and, often, with no access to legal counsel—or they face deportation.

Unaccompanied children, if not immediately deported, have certain protections once in the United States. For example, they cannot be placed into expedited removal proceedings. According to the American Immigration Council, “they are placed into standard removal proceedings in immigration court. CBP must transfer custody of these children to Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), within 72 hours.”

While their court proceedings move forward, HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement manages the care of the children until they can ideally be released to their parents already based in the country. Sometimes, however, they are placed with distant relatives or U.S. sponsors. Because HHS has lowered its safety standards regarding placement, children have been subjected to sexual abuse, labor trafficking, and severe physical abuse and neglect, ThinkProgress has reported.

If while in the care of their family or a sponsor they miss a court date, detainment or deportation can be triggered once they turn 18 and no longer qualify for protections afforded to unaccompanied children. 

This is what happened to Acosta, who was placed with his mother in Durham when he arrived in the United States. ICE contends that Acosta was not targeted unfairly; rather, his missed court appearance triggered his order for removal.

Acosta’s mother told local media that after attending his first court date, Acosta “skipped subsequent ones on the advice of an attorney who told him he didn’t stand a chance.”

“That’s not true, but it’s what they were told,” Benitez said. “So, this idea that all of these kids were given their day in court is false. One kid [we work with] was even told not to sign up for school because ‘there was no point,’ it would just get him deported.”

Benitez told Rewire the reasons why these young people are being targeted and given their final orders of removal need to be re-examined.

Sixty percent of youth from Central America do not ever have access to legal representation throughout the course of their case—from the time they arrive in the United States and are designated as unaccompanied children to the time they turn 18 and are classified as asylum seekers. According to the ACLU, 44 percent of the 23,000 unaccompanied children who were required to attend immigration court this year had no lawyer, and 86 percent of those children were deported.

Immigration attorneys and advocates say that having a lawyer is absolutely necessary if a migrant is to have any chance of winning an asylum claim.

Mao told Rewire that in the Southeast where Acosta and the other members of the NC6 are from, there is a pipeline of youth who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied children who are simply “giving up” on their valid asylum claims because navigating the immigration system is simply too hard.

“They feel the system is rigged, and it is rigged,” Mao said.

Mao has been providing “technical assistance” for Acosta and other members of the NC6. Her organization doesn’t represent individuals in court, she said, but the services it provides are necessary because immigration is such a unique area of law and there are very few attorneys who know how to represent individuals who are detained and who have been designated unaccompanied minors. Those services include providing support, referrals, and technical assistance to advocates, community organizations, and families on deportation defense and custody issues.

Fighting for Asylum From Detention

Once arrested by ICE, there is no telling if someone will linger in detention for months or swiftly be deported. What is known is that if a migrant is taken by ICE in North Carolina, somewhere along the way, they will be transferred to Lumpkin, Georgia’s Stewart Detention Center. As a local paper reported, Stewart is “the last stop before they send you back to whatever country you came from.”

Stewart is the largest detention center in the country, capable of holding 2,000 migrants at any time—it’s also been the subject of numerous investigations because of reports of abuse and inadequate medical care. The detention center is run by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison provider and one that has become synonymous with maintaining inhumane conditions inside of its detention centers. According to a report from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Stewart’s remote location—over two hours away from Atlanta—hinders the facility from attracting and retaining adequate medical staff, while also creating barriers to visitation from attorneys and family members.

There’s also the matter of Georgia being notoriously tough on asylum seekers, even being called the “worst” place to be an undocumented immigrant. The Huffington Post reported that “Atlanta immigration judges have been accused of bullying children, badgering domestic violence victims and setting standards for relief and asylum that lawyers say are next to impossible to meet.” Even more disconcerting, according to a project by Migrahack, which pairs immigration reporters and hackers together, having an attorney in Georgia had almost no effect on whether or not a person won their asylum case, with state courts denying up to 98 percent of asylum requests. 

Acosta, Cortez, and Sorto-Hernandez spent over six months in Stewart Detention Center before they were released on baila “miracle” according to some accounts, given the fact that only about 5 percent of those detained in Stewart are released on bond.

In the weeks after ICE transferred Acosta to Stewart, there were multiple times Acosta was on the verge of deportation. ICE repeatedly denied Acosta was in danger, but advocates say they had little reason to believe the agency. Previous cases have made them wary of such claims.

Advocates believe that three of the North Carolina teens who were deported earlier this year before Acosta’s case made headlines were kept in detention for months with the goal of wearing them down so that they would sign their own deportation orders despite having valid asylum claims.

“They were tired. They couldn’t handle being in detention. They broke down and as much as they feared being returned to their home countries, they just couldn’t handle being there [in detention] anymore. They’d already been there for weeks,” Benitez said.

While ICE claims the average stay of a migrant in Stewart Detention Center is 30 days, the detention center is notorious for excessively long detainments. Acosta’s own bunkmate had been there over a year, according to Indy Week reporter David Hudnall.

As Hudnall reported, there is a massive backlog of immigration cases in the system—474,000 nationally and over 5,000 in North Carolina.

Mao told Rewire that the amount of time the remaining members of the NC6 will spend in detention varies because of different legal processes, but that it’s not unusual for young people with very strong asylum cases to sign their rights away because they can’t sustain the conditions inside detention.

Pedro Arturo Salmeron, another NC6 member, is still in detention. He was almost deported, but Mao told Rewire her organization was able to support a pro bono attorney in appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to stop proceedings.

Japeth Matemu, an immigration attorney, recently told Indy Week’s David Hudnall that “the BIA will tell you that it can’t modify the immigration judge’s ruling unless it’s an egregious or obvious miscarriage of justice. You basically have to prove the judge is off his rocker.”

It could take another four months in detention to appeal Salmeron’s case because ICE continues to refuse to release him, according to the legal fellow.

“That’s a low estimate. It could be another year in detention before there is any movement in his case. We as an organization feel that is egregious to detain someone while their case is pending,” Mao said. “We have to keep in mind that these are kids, and some of these kids can’t survive the conditions of adult prison.”

Detention centers operate as prisons do, with those detained being placed in handcuffs and shackles, being stripped of their personal belongings, with no ability to move around freely. One of Acosta’s teachers told Rewire he wasn’t even able to receive his homework in detention.

Many of those in detention centers have experienced trauma. Multiple studies confirm that “detention has a profoundly negative impact on young people’s mental and physical well-being” and in the particular case of asylum seekers, detention may exacerbate their trauma and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. 

“People are so traumatized by the raids, and then you add detention on top of that. Some of these kids cannot psychologically and physically deal with the conditions in detention, so they waive their rights,” Mao said.

In March, Salmeron and fellow NC6 member Yefri Sorto-Hernandez received stays of deportation, meaning they would not face immediate deportation. ICE says a stay is like a “legal pause.” During the pause, immigration officials decide if evidence in the case will be reconsidered for asylum. Sorto-Hernandez was released five months later.

Benitez said that previously when she organized around detention, a stay of deportation meant the person would get released from detention, but ICE’s decision to detain some of the NC6 indefinitely until their cases are heard illustrates how “weirdly severe” the agency is being toward this particular population. Mao fears this is a tactic being used by ICE to break down young people in detention.

“ICE knows it will take months, and frankly up to a year, for some of these motions to go through the court system, but the agency is still refusing to release individuals. I can’t help but think it’s with the intention that these kids will give up their claims while suffering in detention,” Mao said.

“I think we really have to question that, why keep these young people locked up when they can be with their communities, with their families, going to school? ICE can release these kids now, but for showmanship, ICE is refusing to let them go. Is this who we want to be, is this the message we want to send the world?” she asked.

In the seven months since the announcement of Operation Border Guardian, DHS has remained quiet about whether or not there will be more raids on young Central American asylum seekers. As a new school year approaches, advocates fear that even more students will be receiving their orders for removal, and unlike the NC6, they may not have a community to rally around them, putting them at risk of quietly being deported and not heard from again.

Analysis Politics

Timeline: Donald Trump’s Shifting Position on Abortion Rights

Ally Boguhn

Trump’s murky position on abortion has caused an uproar this election season as conservatives grapple with a Republican nominee whose stance on the issue has varied over time. Join Rewire for a look back at the business mogul's changing views on abortion.

For much of the 2016 election cycle, Donald Trump’s seemingly ever-changing position on reproductive health care and abortion rights has continued to draw scrutiny.

Trump was “totally pro-choice” in 1999, but “pro-life” by 2011. He wanted to shut down the government to defund Planned Parenthood in August 2015, but claimed “you can’t go around and say that” about such measures two months later. He thinks Planned Parenthood does “very good work” but wants to see it lose all of its funding as long as it offers abortion care. And, perhaps most notoriously, in late March of this year Trump took multiple stances over the course of just a few hours on whether those who have abortions should be punished if it became illegal.

With the hesitancy of anti-choice groups to fully embrace Trump—and with pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and EMILY’s List all backing his opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—it is likely his stance on abortion will remain a key election issue moving into November.

Join Rewire for a look back at the business mogul’s changing views on abortion.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:



Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!


Thank you for supporting our work!