"The United States is ending its financial support for family planning programs in developing countries, cutting nearly 50 million women off from access to contraception."
#StephanieNolen
@nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com/2025/04/01/h...
“People will die. We will never know [how many] because even the programs to count the dead are cut.” nyti.ms/43hOcAv #NoCountingDead, #CuttingFunding, #HIV, #Malaria, #Ebola, #Prenatal, #Child-Health, #USAID, #DOGE, #MAGA-Driven, #poor, #Africa, #racism, #TrumpAgenda, #NewYorkTimes, #StephanieNolen
Stephanie Nolen - global health reporter: @K.M Thanks for reading. I know many people share the view that it is inappropriate for the United States to spend money to assist developing countries when there are people struggling to access health care or other assistance at home. The thing that I think this perspective misses, based on my many years of reporting on this subject, is that much of the U.S. spending is not altruistic. It's done to directly serve the interests of the United States. The U.S. funds almost all disease surveillance in Africa, for example – & yes, that protects Africans, but it also protects Americans, who are much safer when Ebola or a new mpox strain are detected while still in Uganda or D.R.C., rather than when they have traveled with a passenger bound for Kansas. The U.S. funds tuberculosis treatment in poor countries because Americans are less safe if extremely drug resistant strains of TB are permitted to evolve & spread. U.S. agencies do many clinical trials in developing countries. Supporting primary health care in very fragile states helps maintain peace. I could list 1,000 examples of how this spending directly contributes to U.S. national security. Is money spent to support these kinds of projects then actually money spent to assist Americans? (It also doesn't hurt to maintain an international image as a country interested in partnership, when seeking places for military bases or a friendly environment for U.S. mining companies, for example.)
How USAID makes Americans safer.
#StephanieNolen #health #aid #ForeignAid #USAID #USpol
Stephanie Nolen - global health reporter: @K.M Thanks for reading. I know many people share the view that it is inappropriate for the United States to spend money to assist developing countries when there are people struggling to access health care or other assistance at home. The thing that I think this perspective misses, based on my many years of reporting on this subject, is that much of the U.S. spending is not altruistic. It's done to directly serve the interests of the United States. The U.S. funds almost all disease surveillance in Africa, for example – & yes, that protects Africans, but it also protects Americans, who are much safer when Ebola or a new mpox strain are detected while still in Uganda or D.R.C., rather than when they have traveled with a passenger bound for Kansas. The U.S. funds tuberculosis treatment in poor countries because Americans are less safe if extremely drug resistant strains of TB are permitted to evolve & spread. U.S. agencies do many clinical trials in developing countries. Supporting primary health care in very fragile states helps maintain peace. I could list 1,000 examples of how this spending directly contributes to U.S. national security. Is money spent to support these kinds of projects then actually money spent to assist Americans? (It also doesn't hurt to maintain an international image as a country interested in partnership, when seeking places for military bases or a friendly environment for U.S. mining companies, for example.)
How USAID makes Americans safer.
#StephanieNolen #health #aid #ForeignAid #USAID #USpol
