Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 28;15(4):e0231960.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231960. eCollection 2020.

Investigating the early impact of the Trump Administration's Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health service delivery in Uganda

Margaret Giorgio  1 , Fredrick Makumbi  2 , Simon Peter Sebina Kibira  2 , Suzanne Bell  3 , Selena Anjur-Dietrich  1 , Elizabeth Sully  1
Affiliations

Investigating the early impact of the Trump Administration's Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health service delivery in Uganda

Margaret Giorgio et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The Global Gag Rule (GGR), reinstated by President Trump in January 2017, makes non-U.S. non-governmental organizations ineligible for U.S. foreign assistance if they provide access to or information about abortion. While evidence suggests previous iterations of the GGR negatively impacted sexual and reproductive health outcomes, no studies have quantitatively assessed the impacts of the Trump administration's GGR.

Methods: We constructed a panel dataset of facilities (76% public) using 2017/2018 Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 service delivery point (SDP) surveys in Uganda. Based on information from stakeholder meetings, we classified districts as more or less exposed to the GGR; 45% (N = 34) of study districts were classified as "more exposed", which corresponded to 145 "more exposed" and 142 "less exposed" health facilities in our sample. We assessed changes in provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives, contraceptive stock-outs, mobile outreach services, engagement with community health workers (CHWs), service integration, and quality of care from 2017 (pre-GGR) to 2018 (post-GGR). Multivariable regression models were estimated, and difference-in-differences impact estimators were determined by calculating predicted probabilities from interaction terms for exposure and survey round.

Findings: We observed no immediate impact of the GGR on the provision of long-acting reversible contraceptives, contraceptive stock-outs, mobile outreach services, service integration, or quality of care. We did observe a significant impact of the policy on the average number of CHWs, with "more exposed" facilities engaging 3.8 fewer CHWs post-GGR (95% CI:-7.31,-0.32).

Conclusions: The reduction in CHWs could reduce contraceptive use and increase unintended pregnancies in Uganda. The lack of other significant findings may not be surprising given the short post-GGR observation window. Rapid organizational responses and stopgap funding from foreign governments may have mitigated any immediate impacts on service delivery in the short term. The true impact may not be felt for many years, as stopgap funding potentially ebbs and service providers adapt to new funding environments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Hypothetical causal pathway for the impact of the Global Gag Rule on service delivery and women’s SRH outcomes.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Selection process for analytic sample.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Difference in difference of selected dichotomous outcomes between more exposed and less exposed SDPs.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Difference in difference of selected continuous outcomes between more exposed and less exposed SDPs.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. U.S. Department of State. Background Briefing: Senior Administration Officials on Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance [Internet]. Teleconference; 2017 [cited 2019 Feb 11]. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/05/270879.htm
    1. Barot S, Cohen SA. The Global Gag Rule and Fights over Funding UNFPA: The Issues That Won’t Go Away. Guttmacher Policy Rev. 2015. June 8;18(2):27–33.
    1. PAI. Access Denied: Uganda [Internet]. Washington, D.C.: PAI; 2018 Mar [cited 2019 Jan 3]. (Access Denied). https://pai.org/reports/access-denied-uganda/
    1. Bingenheimer JB, Skuster P. The Foreseeable Harms of Trump’s Global Gag Rule. Stud Fam Plann. 2017. September 1;48(3):279–90. 10.1111/sifp.12030 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones KM. Contraceptive Supply and Fertility Outcomes: Evidence from Ghana. Econ Dev Cult Change. 2015. October 1;64(1):31–69.

Publication types

MeSH terms