Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
anonymoose

Repeal vs. Fund Regardless for Gag Rule

Recommended Posts

I've seen a fair share of gag rule cases this year, and I was wondering if someone could enlighten me on the functional difference between A) Repealing the Mexico City Policy or B) Funding NGO's regardless of their compliance with the Mexico City Policy.

 

Would repealing the policy actually be an on-face increase?

 

thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the plan funds regardless, since they aren't repealing the policy, the aff couldn't technically solve for any of the problems stemming off of the gag rule? (i.e. since the gag rule still exists, they wouldn't solve the cultural imperialism that it creates. i'm trying to understand this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the plan funds regardless, since they aren't repealing the policy, the aff couldn't technically solve for any of the problems stemming off of the gag rule? (i.e. since the gag rule still exists, they wouldn't solve the cultural imperialism that it creates. i'm trying to understand this.)

 

I think there's some ev about how disregarding the Gag Rule would kick its ass or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if the plan funds regardless, since they aren't repealing the policy, the aff couldn't technically solve for any of the problems stemming off of the gag rule? (i.e. since the gag rule still exists, they wouldn't solve the cultural imperialism that it creates. i'm trying to understand this.)

 

fiat overcomes any structural barriers -- ie, the resolution sets up the question of should family planning be increased, not whether it will

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the gag rule was "repealed" for a while was because the new appropriations act didn't say that aid would be sorted though and in compliance to the Mexico City Policy -- if the plan increases aid and circumvents the GGR, then it is "repealed" in the instance of that aid -- that aid is rejecting colonialist barriers, empowers women, whatever.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why the gag rule was "repealed" for a while was because the new appropriations act didn't say that aid would be sorted though and in compliance to the Mexico City Policy -- if the plan increases aid and circumvents the GGR, then it is "repealed" in the instance of that aid -- that aid is rejecting colonialist barriers, empowers women, whatever.

 

Got it. Thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...