The primary role that elected officials play in the United States is serving the interests of the American people. The officials are required to ensure that the electorate has access to such basic services as health, sanitation and education. While most officials understand their mandate, only a few fulfill their obligations. To ensure that the officials remain faithful to their mandate, there are a number of tools that the American people can use to demand action. Lobbying is among these tools. Essentially, lobbying involves reaching out to an elected official with a petition (Zetter, 2011). The people may ask an official to push a certain law to have it enacted or more funding put aside for financing certain programs. The wide range of issues that the American people can push for underscores the power of lobbying. Thus, the policy that commits the American government to provide funding to organizations and programs that secure the reproductive health of women in the United States and across the globe requires enhancing.
Policy background
The policy that under lobbying for concerns funding for organizations that provide reproductive health services to women. Women in the United States are among the few across the world who enjoy access to these services. One of the services that offered to women is abortion. In most US states, a woman is able to procure abortion at any of the clinics that offer the service. Reproductive health services for women in the US have a long and interesting history. The Hyde Amendment is one of the important elements of abortion funding in the US. This legislation denies women who covered under Medicaid access to abortion services (“Public Funding” n.d). However, the law makes exceptions for women whose pregnancies have been the result of rape or incest. Exempted from the provisions of the law are women whose lives are at risk (“Public Funding” n.d). Notably, a number of US states have gone against the spirit of the Hyde Amendment. These states have enacted laws that ensure funding for women from low-income communities who wish to terminate their pregnancies. Washington and New York are some of these states (“Public Funding”, n.d). In some other states, the courts have intervened to protect the reproductive rights of women. The courts have made it clear that funds must be set aside to ensure that all women who desire to procure abortions are able to do so without the worry of financial constraints.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As is clear from the discussion so far, the main goal of the policy concerning funding for reproductive health services is to safeguard the health of women. The other goal that this policy seeks to achieve is to ensure that violation of rights of women does not occur. Women have the right to make choices about their lives. This policy provides an environment that allows women to terminate pregnancies if they do not feel that they are ready for the challenges of motherhood. The policy also extends to funding for foreign organizations that provide reproductive health services such as abortion to women in other countries. Support for Planned Parenthood is perhaps the most important program developed through this policy. Planned Parenthood operates a number of clinics across the US where women can receive such services as abortion (Lee, 2015). In addition to allowing women to terminate pregnancies, this organization offers other services that enhance the health of women. These services include anemia testing, flu vaccination, thyroid screening, and diabetes screening (“General Health Care”, n.d.). The organization enjoys recognition for providing abortion services.
Federal funding for reproductive health services for women has been largely successful. Thanks to this funding, thousands of women have accessed safe services. For instance, women across the United States are now able to terminate pregnancies safely. Previously, many died as they sought this service from unlicensed practitioners who lacked the expertise and authority to terminate pregnancies. Abortion funding has also allowed the United States to rid itself of the black market where women would access abortion services. It is common for stricter regulation and total bans to encourage people to go underground and establish black markets (Cohen, 2013). Federal funding for abortion and other reproductive health services has also placed power back into the hands of women. Today, women have total and direct control over their health.
Recently, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that cuts all funding for organizations that support abortion in foreign countries. This demonstrates the Executive’s attempt to reverse the gains that women, across the world, have made in asserting their rights. Many fear that Trump’s order will threaten the health of millions of women who rely on the funds that the American government provides to access basic reproductive health services (Lee, 2015). Women from across the US recently held a match to protest Trump’s executive order. The match was an effort to strengthen the policy that ensures federal funding for organizations that provide reproductive health services both in the United States and in foreign countries (Hartocollis & Alcindor, 2017). Overall, funding for reproductive health services remains a controversial issue. The American public seems evenly split on the issue. There are those who think that this funding advances the rights of women. Others are worried that continued funding for abortion and other reproductive health services amounts to murdering of innocent babies. The benefits that the entire American has enjoyed because of the funding make it clear that the funding policy is vital and requires strengthening.
Scope of issue
The importance of the funding policy for reproductive health services cannot be overstated. The lobbying efforts mentioned earlier will focus on convincing the elected official to strengthen the policy concerning funding for reproductive health services for women. The efforts will focus on the important role that this policy serves. One of the important functions that the policy executes concerns safeguarding the health of women. Thanks to the funding that the American government provides, millions of women have enjoyed access to reproductive health services (Sengupta, 2017). Without this funding, most of these women would be wallowing in suffering and deep anguish. The other role of the policy concerns the rights and freedoms of women. Women are among the groups that have suffered marginalization and silenced for years. The federal funding offers the women a voice. It gives them the power to determine their own health. They no longer have to resort to shady quacks as they can now access safe and evidence-based reproductive health services. Therefore, for the sake of American women and all the women across the globe who have benefited from federal funding, investing efforts in strengthening the policy that secures this funding is most recommendable.
The issue of funding for reproductive health services affects mostly women. As already mentioned, this issue makes it possible for thousands of women to access basic services. As it strengthens this issue, the United States will ensure that no woman lives in fear of poor health. The issue for which the lobbying effort stands seeks to ensure that all American women and other women in other countries continue to enjoy access to abortion and other reproductive health services. Currently, Planned Parenthood, which receives a bulk of its finances from the federal government, is allocated $528.4 million (Kurtzleben, 2015). The federal government spends billions of dollars on other organizations that provide reproductive health services. For instance, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP) received $608 million from the American government in 2016 (“The U.S. Government”, 2017). One of the functions that UNFP performs is providing global populations with such services as family planning. That the American government invests heavily in the reproductive health of its own people and the larger global community is evident. It is for this reason that the policy which supports this funding should be strengthened.
The issue of funding for reproductive health services has received immense media attention. Many news organizations in the US have shed light on this issue in an effort to educate the American public. The issue received even more media attention following Trump’s decision to sign the executive order mentioned earlier. There are media organizations that praised the president. They argued that the executive order would secure the rights of millions of unborn babies. Some of the media houses condemned the president’s action. They opined that the executive order threatens the gains that women have made and will create conditions that allow for underground health facilities that provide abortion services to thrive (Hellman, 2017). The media coverage has mostly been biased and unfair. The media organizations have adopted stances that are in line with their policies and beliefs. The media organizations also appear to have adopted positions that would resonate with their audiences. Organizations whose audiences are liberal were mostly opposed to the executive order while those with conservative audiences supported the president.
Perspective
Personally, I support the right of women to access reproductive health services. I think that the federal government has an obligation to protect the rights of women and safeguard their health. My beliefs regarding the rights and health of women offered me the drive to pursue the lobbying initiative described earlier. Every year, thousands of women die as they try to terminate pregnancies. The situation is worse in the developing world where women use crude and dangerous methods (Geimard, 2013). This situation is representative of the strict regulations and the inadequate funding in the developing countries. The executive order that President Trump signed means that the situation will only worsen. To ensure that improvements witnessed as regards the health of women are not eroded, it is important for elected leaders in the United States to act. They should enact legislation and institute policies that would secure federal funding for organizations that support and provide reproductive health services to women. I would like to see the United States reinstate its commitment to the health of women by making policies that protect the reproductive rights of women stronger. I particularly desire to see the United States set minimum funding targets for domestic and foreign organizations that enhance access to reproductive health services. I hope to see lawmakers in the United States make it clear that no administration or individual has the authority or right to introduce laws that threaten the health of the millions of women in the country and abroad who have derived immense benefits from the funding that the American government provides every year.
Action narrative
Traditionally, the Democratic Party has supported the reproductive rights of American women. This party has sponsored and supported laws that are intended to safeguard the rights of women to access abortion and other reproductive health services. It is for this reason that our group targeted a Congressman, Hon. Jon Wilcox, from this party. We were convinced that since the Democratic Party has always supported the rights of women, Wilcox would respond favorably to our lobbying efforts. We also examined the voting record of Wilcox. We realized that he has supported liberal causes and programs. For example, he has supported gun-control measures and has been part of the efforts to introduce more regulations for the banking industry. We believed that his voting trend meant that he would support our initiative. A number of issues were discussed. One, we reminded Wilcox about the progress that women across the world have made. Two, we told him that the investment and commitment of the American government was responsible for this progress. Thirdly, we warned Wilcox that the executive order that President Trump signed posed a threat to all women. We particularly cautioned him that the US risked losing its position of influence if it withdraws funding for groups that offer and support the reproductive rights of women. All the members of our group took part in the lobby visit. A friend who worked with Wilcox facilitated the visit. We held our discussions in his office. I must admit that the visit was not entirely smooth. Wilcox told us that he had a busy schedule and that he could only spare a few minutes. However, after learning that we wished to speak with him about the reproductive rights of women, he cleared his schedule and allowed us to discuss the issue for an entire hour. He assured us that he would discuss the issue with other members of his party and introduce it in the legislature. As of writing this paper, no development in terms of legislative action has occurred. We believe that this is because there are complex and long procedures that are followed when introducing bills.
Ethical and theoretical considerations
One of the mandates that social workers are charged wi01trth is speaking for communities that are voiceless. Social workers are expected to ensure that the needs and desires of these communities are met. Advocacy is among the tools that they can use in the execution of this mandate. Through advocacy, social workers display their commitment to responding to the plight of vulnerable and disadvantaged communities (Tom, 2012). The issue discussed above concerns women. Women have suffered injustices and abuses. The policy for which the lobbying effort was launched seeks to ensure that women endure injustice no more. Engaging in advocacy is also important because it alleviates the suffering of communities (Tom, 2012). It provides communities with access to vital services that they would not access. The other reason why it is important for social workers to engage in advocacy concerns defeating evil and cruelty. There are many challenges that the world faces today. Evil individuals who are keen on causing pain and devastation are mostly responsible for these challenges. It is the role of social workers to stand up to these individuals and demand an end to their destructive actions. Advocacy matters because it offers a voice to vulnerable communities. It matters because it allows these communities to improve their situation. The important role that advocacy plays in transforming communities underscores the need for all social work practitioners do to defend vulnerable communities.
In conclusion, it is clear that the world has changed for the better. This is evident when one observes the situation of women today. While it is true that there are still millions of women who endure oppression, there are many more rescued from suffering and despair. The United States has played a leading role in improving the situation of women. Providing funding for reproductive health services is one of the measures that the country has instituted as part of its campaign to safeguard the rights of women. The executive action that President Trump signed threatens the advances that women have accomplished. For this reason, there is need for the legislature to reiterate America’s commitment to protecting women and other vulnerable groups. Hopefully, the lobbying initiative that was launched and pursued will play an important role in securing the progress that women have made.
References
Cohen, I. G. (2013). Transplant Tourism: The Ethics and Regulation of International Markets
For Organs. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 41 (1).
Geimard, M. (2013). Population and Health in Developing Countries. New York: Springer.
General Health Care. (n.d). Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/general-health-care
Hartocollis, A., & Alcindor, Y. (2017). Women’s March Highlights as Huge Crowds Protest
Trump: We’re not going away. Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/womens-march.html
Hellman, J. (2017). Trump Reinstates Ban on US Funding for Abortion Overseas. Retrieved
21 st March 2017 from http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/abortion/315652-trump-signs-executive-order-reinstating-global-gag-rule-on
Kurtzleben, D. (2015). Fact Check: How does Planned Parenthood Spend the Government
Money. Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money
Lee, M. Y. H. (2015). For Planned Parenthood Abortion Stats ‘3 Percent’ and ’94 Percent’
Are both Misleading. Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from h ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-p arenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.81c75b184726
Public Funding for Abortion. (n.d). Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from
https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion
Sengupta, S. (2017). Trump Revives Ban on Foreign Aid to Groups that Give Abortion
Counseling. Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html
The U.S. Government and International Family Planning & Reproductive Health Efforts.
(2017). Retrieved 21 st March 2017 from http://kff.org/global-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-u-s-government-and-international-family-planning-reproductive-health-efforts/
Tom, W. (2012). Advocacy and Social Work Practice. London: McGraw-Hill Education UK.
Zetter, L. (2011). Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion. Petersfield, UK:
Harriman House Limited.
