評論
打印
United States
美國
Abortion Policy: Gag Reflex
墮胎政策：適得其反
A policy intended to cut abortions is likely to do just the opposite.
試圖降低墮胎率的政策卻適得其反。
One ritual has become familiar for a president’s first week in the Oval Office.
歷屆美國總統在就任第一周里都要進行一項“儀式”。
It has long been illegal for federal money to be used to fund abortions anywhere.
長期以來，聯邦資金都被禁止用于資助任何地區與墮胎相關的事務。
On January 23rd, four days into his presidency, Donald Trump signed an executive order that bans government aid to foreign non-governmental organisations that “actively promote” abortion, for example by telling a woman that abortion is a legally available option.
1月23日，唐納德·特朗普在其就任美國總統第四天的時候簽署了一項總統令，禁止政府對“積極提倡（例如向女性告知墮胎合法）”墮胎的外國非政府組織提供官方援助。
Since 1984, when the policy first came about, it has been swiftly revoked by incoming Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican ones.
自1984年該政令首次出臺起，它就備受爭議，繼任的民主黨總統不斷將其廢除，而共和黨總統卻總會把它恢復。
Past experience suggests that this “global gag rule” will lead to more abortions, not fewer.
根據以往經驗來看，這項“全球計劃生育遏制政策”將導致墮胎率升高，而非降低。
A study by researchers at Stanford University found that after the policy came into effect in 2001, the abortion rate increased sharply in sub-Saharan African countries that had been receiving substantial amounts of aid for family-planning programmes.
斯坦福大學研究人員進行的一項調查顯示，這項政策在2001年施行之后，得到計劃生育計劃實質性援助的撒哈拉以南非洲國家中墮胎率急劇上升。
By contrast, the abortion rate remained stable in countries that were less dependent on such aid.
與之相反的是，對此類援助依賴性較小的國家中墮胎率仍保持穩定。
The study, as well as anecdotal accounts and research by NGOs, suggest that abortions rose because of cuts in the supply of contraceptives.
根據這項研究以及來自非政府組織的各種調查與一些未經證實的說法，墮胎率上升的原因是避孕藥物供應減少。
In many poor countries NGOs funded by Western governments are big providers of contraceptives, and many fall foul of the Mexico City policy (named after the population conference at which it was first unveiled).
在許多貧窮國家，免費發放的避孕藥物大多來自受西方國家政府資助的非政府組織，而其中大部分違反了“墨西哥城政策”（首次提出該政策的人口會議在墨西哥城召開，由此得名）。
Some provide abortions, others just information on where a safe, legal abortion can be obtained.
他們中的一些提供墮胎服務，另一些僅提供可安全合法地施行墮胎手術的診所信息。
Both can be life-saving: many women die from botched abortions, even in countries where abortion is legal.
這兩種做法都能挽救生命：即使在可合法墮胎的國家中，也有許多女性因墮胎手術失敗而不幸身亡。
Some NGOs have chosen to close clinics rather than accept money with the new strings.
一些非政府組織選擇關掉診所，而不是接受附加新規的資金援助。
Marie Stopes International, a British NGO, estimates the measure could cut 1.5m women off its family planning services in 2017 and lead to 2.2m more abortions in the next four years.
根據英國非政府機構瑪麗斯特普國際組織的估計，在2017年，該舉措將使150萬女性得不到原有的計劃生育服務，從而導致接下來的四年中將新增墮胎案例220萬例。
In the past, European countries have upped their aid for family-planning programmes to fill what an EU official called the “decency gap” in aid.
過去，歐洲國家通過提高其計劃生育計劃援助力度來彌補這種后果（歐盟稱之為援助上的“禮節性差距”）。
A day after Mr Trump resurrected the policy the Dutch government said it will set up a special fund to counter its impact.
在特朗普重新推行該政策后的第二天，荷蘭政府宣布將設立一項專項資金，用以抵消該政策的影響。
This time round the gap could be larger.
這一次，差距變得更大了。
Previously, the Mexico City policy applied only to aid for family-planning programmes, which in 2016 stood at about $600m.
很明顯，墨西哥城政策僅針對計劃生育計劃的援助，在2016年，該計劃的援助資金總額為大約6億美元。
Mr Trump’s version covers all global health aid, a pot as large as $9.5bn a year.
而特朗普新推行的政策卻涵蓋了所有全球性健康援助，資金總量達到95億美元之巨。
That is about a third of rich countries’ total foreign aid for health care.
這相當于所有發達國家在衛生保健方面所提供健康援助資金的三分之一。
Nobody knows how many NGOs will shun money under the new rules.
到底會有多少非政府組織迫于新規的壓力而停止援助服務尚不得而知。
The casualties may include the foot soldiers in America’s global campaign against HIV/AIDS, which has beaten back the disease in Africa. (George W. Bush made an exception for HIV/AIDS when he resurrected the Mexico City rules.)
但至少在美洲地區，戰斗在全球艾滋病抗擊運動第一線的仁人志士們將首當其沖（這項運動曾在非洲地區取得顯著成效，美國前總統喬治·布什在恢復墨西哥城政策時將艾滋病相關援助定為特例）。
Supporters of the policy see it as pro-life.
支持者們認為這項政策是在挽救生命。
Sadly, the probable outcome may be just the opposite.
但不幸的是，其后果很可能恰恰相反。
譯文來源考研英語時事閱讀
