South African government responses to Trump's Global Gag Rule: Silence, ignorance, and avoidance
- Ndabula, Yanela, Macleod, Catriona I, du Plessis, Ulandi, Moore, Sarah-Ann
- Authors: Ndabula, Yanela , Macleod, Catriona I , du Plessis, Ulandi , Moore, Sarah-Ann
- Date: 2024
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/441299 , vital:73875 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183241229046"
- Description: In 2017, Donald Trump signed the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), thereby reinstating the Global Gag Rule. The policy restricted all United States foreign funding from abortion-related activities. Little research reports the responses of recipients of this bilateral assistance. The study documents the South African government's responses to the PLGHA. We accessed Hansard parliamentary debates, interviewed four parliamentarians alongside one government official, and reviewed a USAID-funded initiative developed while the policy was in effect. We analysed the data using interpretive content analysis through a global social policy and gendered coloniality lens. Our research documents silence, ignorance, avoidance, and possible over-interpretation of the PLGHA within the South African government. The colonialist politics of global redistribution created the grounds for gendered regulation, resulting in a fundamental undermining of reproductive rights. Ironically, the solution – advocacy and parliamentarian briefing regarding sexual and reproductive issues – is generally led by civil society, the bodies weakened by the PLGHA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2024
- Authors: Ndabula, Yanela , Macleod, Catriona I , du Plessis, Ulandi , Moore, Sarah-Ann
- Date: 2024
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/441299 , vital:73875 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183241229046"
- Description: In 2017, Donald Trump signed the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), thereby reinstating the Global Gag Rule. The policy restricted all United States foreign funding from abortion-related activities. Little research reports the responses of recipients of this bilateral assistance. The study documents the South African government's responses to the PLGHA. We accessed Hansard parliamentary debates, interviewed four parliamentarians alongside one government official, and reviewed a USAID-funded initiative developed while the policy was in effect. We analysed the data using interpretive content analysis through a global social policy and gendered coloniality lens. Our research documents silence, ignorance, avoidance, and possible over-interpretation of the PLGHA within the South African government. The colonialist politics of global redistribution created the grounds for gendered regulation, resulting in a fundamental undermining of reproductive rights. Ironically, the solution – advocacy and parliamentarian briefing regarding sexual and reproductive issues – is generally led by civil society, the bodies weakened by the PLGHA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2024
Multi-layered risk management in under-resourced antenatal clinics
- Feltham-King, Tracey, Macleod, Catriona I
- Authors: Feltham-King, Tracey , Macleod, Catriona I
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/298561 , vital:57716 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432"
- Description: In this article we contribute to critical risk approaches to studying pregnancy and childbirth in the global South. Following Sarah Rudrum’s work, our approach focusses on sociocultural inequalities amid the regulation of individuals. We draw on data from our Foucauldian-inspired ethnography of two antenatal clinics in an under-resourced area of South Africa to illustrate how multi-layered risk management operates in these spaces. These data were collected over a period of six months in the form of semi-structured interviews, observations of consultations and waiting room interactions, documents used in the clinic, and posters appearing on the clinic walls. Our findings show how a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management, as encoded in international, national and institutional guidelines, is well known, highly visible, and practised through surveillance and reporting mechanisms in clinics. This approach incites healthcare practitioners to achieve particular performance standards and to monitor their professional agency. Managing pregnancy risk thus entails regulating the healthcare practitioners themselves. In implementing approved pregnancy risk management strategies in an over-subscribed and under-resourced public healthcare setting, however, healthcare practitioners face potential risk to their professional reputation and integrity. In managing this risk, they resist the scientific-bureaucratic approach through: depicting themselves as victims of unfair institutional arrangements or unreasonable patients; instituting street-level bureaucracy to control access to the clinics; and controlling patients’ actions in authoritarian ways. Our research shows that without engagement with the on-the-ground realities of the antenatal clinic in resource-poor environments, a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management is inevitably limited in its effectiveness.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Feltham-King, Tracey , Macleod, Catriona I
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/298561 , vital:57716 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2019.1697432"
- Description: In this article we contribute to critical risk approaches to studying pregnancy and childbirth in the global South. Following Sarah Rudrum’s work, our approach focusses on sociocultural inequalities amid the regulation of individuals. We draw on data from our Foucauldian-inspired ethnography of two antenatal clinics in an under-resourced area of South Africa to illustrate how multi-layered risk management operates in these spaces. These data were collected over a period of six months in the form of semi-structured interviews, observations of consultations and waiting room interactions, documents used in the clinic, and posters appearing on the clinic walls. Our findings show how a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management, as encoded in international, national and institutional guidelines, is well known, highly visible, and practised through surveillance and reporting mechanisms in clinics. This approach incites healthcare practitioners to achieve particular performance standards and to monitor their professional agency. Managing pregnancy risk thus entails regulating the healthcare practitioners themselves. In implementing approved pregnancy risk management strategies in an over-subscribed and under-resourced public healthcare setting, however, healthcare practitioners face potential risk to their professional reputation and integrity. In managing this risk, they resist the scientific-bureaucratic approach through: depicting themselves as victims of unfair institutional arrangements or unreasonable patients; instituting street-level bureaucracy to control access to the clinics; and controlling patients’ actions in authoritarian ways. Our research shows that without engagement with the on-the-ground realities of the antenatal clinic in resource-poor environments, a scientific-bureaucratic approach to pregnancy risk management is inevitably limited in its effectiveness.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
Reproductive justice in context: South African and Zimbabwean women’s narratives of their abortion decision
- Chiweshe, Malvern T, Mavuso, Jabulile M-J J, Macleod, Catriona I
- Authors: Chiweshe, Malvern T , Mavuso, Jabulile M-J J , Macleod, Catriona I
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/444371 , vital:74223 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517699234"
- Description: The abortion decision-making process is embedded within overlapping power relations. Using a post-colonial feminist framework, we analyse South African and Zimbabwean women’s narratives regarding their abortion decision. As neighbouring countries, South Africa and Zimbabwe provide a useful counterpoint as they have common and differing social histories and very different abortion legislation. In our analysis, we unpick transversal commonalities and divergences in the discursive resources deployed by the women in their narratives in the two sites. Commonalities included the women feeling compelled to justify their abortion decision in the interactive interview space, an absence of a reproductive rights discourse, and the deployment of relationship embedded discourses in the justificatory work performed by the women. The ‘‘conjugalisation of reproduction’’, ‘‘imperative of good mothering’’, and ‘‘unstable partner relationships’’ discourses featured across both sites but the manner in which these were deployed differed. These discursive resources allowed the women to position themselves as making responsible decisions. The Zimbabwean women spoke of shame and hiding, a discursive resource that was explicitly absent in the South African women’s accounts. We conclude by arguing that our post-colonial feminist approach allows for a contextualised reproductive justice stance to abortion decision-making that identifies both transnational and context-specific power relations.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Chiweshe, Malvern T , Mavuso, Jabulile M-J J , Macleod, Catriona I
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/444371 , vital:74223 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517699234"
- Description: The abortion decision-making process is embedded within overlapping power relations. Using a post-colonial feminist framework, we analyse South African and Zimbabwean women’s narratives regarding their abortion decision. As neighbouring countries, South Africa and Zimbabwe provide a useful counterpoint as they have common and differing social histories and very different abortion legislation. In our analysis, we unpick transversal commonalities and divergences in the discursive resources deployed by the women in their narratives in the two sites. Commonalities included the women feeling compelled to justify their abortion decision in the interactive interview space, an absence of a reproductive rights discourse, and the deployment of relationship embedded discourses in the justificatory work performed by the women. The ‘‘conjugalisation of reproduction’’, ‘‘imperative of good mothering’’, and ‘‘unstable partner relationships’’ discourses featured across both sites but the manner in which these were deployed differed. These discursive resources allowed the women to position themselves as making responsible decisions. The Zimbabwean women spoke of shame and hiding, a discursive resource that was explicitly absent in the South African women’s accounts. We conclude by arguing that our post-colonial feminist approach allows for a contextualised reproductive justice stance to abortion decision-making that identifies both transnational and context-specific power relations.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »