I've spent several days thinking about Michelle's question. There are a lot of things going on here. Obviously, legalized rape is a horror. No one is going to argue otherwise. But these kinds of restrictive laws are going to be a consequence of Hamid Karzai's negotiation with the Taliban, and the general consensus seems to be that these negotiations are necessary for peace in Afghanistan. Since women are so severely affected by conflict, is there an argument to be made that a horrible law is the price to pay for peace? But to make that argument, you need to know exactly how much this law contributes to peace, and how much damage it causes in comparison to the impact of conflict. Any calculation like this is inherently flawed, because the variables are pretty much guesses.

I think, though, that this calculation is not ours to make. It is not our lives at stake. This is where we follow the lead of women in Afghanistan. They are living through a war, and they are the ones facing marital rape. A cursory web search indicates that Afghan women's groups are strongly opposed to this law. For example, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has not issued a statement, but they have reprinted on their website an editorial from the Guardian which is strongly opposed to the law. Women for Afghan Women, based in Kabul, has  explicitly condemned the law.

It seems to me, then, that the correct role of the US is one of solidarity and support. We need to condemn, and work against, this law as firmly and explicitly as Afghan women themselves have.

Since we've been discussing the role of the United States in fostering women's sexual and reproductive rights worldwide, I'm curious as to what others think the US should do about the new Shia Personal Status law in Afghanistan. As most of you no doubt know, the new law appears to legalize spousal rape, to require women to get their husband’s permission to leave the house, work or visit the doctor, and to grant child custody to fathers and grandfathers, a provision that will further entrap women in abusive situations. On Thursday the Associated Press quoted one provision stating that a woman is “bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires,” and that a husband has the right to sex with his wife every four nights. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

Like Michelle, I was struck by the emphasis on population growth, which has indeed been a taboo topic in recent years. And I agree that the conversation about population is now “roaring back.” (For just one example, check out this debate on Alternet )

The new emphasis on population growth has again raised the specter of “population control,” but it could also reinvigorate support for sexual and reproductive health and rights. So how should advocates for women’s rights and health approach this debate? Frances Kissling, the former director of Catholics for a Free Choice, grapples with this question in a terrific essay that will be published in my forthcoming book (A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice and the Environmental Challenge). Some organizations, she argues, must continue to insist that women’s rights are an end in themselves. “At the same time,” writes Kissling, “there is no need for these groups to attempt to prohibit all organizations from making links between population, environment, development and reproductive health.”

Instead, a constructive approach would set standards for how we talk about – and act on -- on population and environment issues: taking care not to overstate the role of population growth and ensuring scrupulous attention to human rights in discourse, communications, advocacy and programs.

I agree with the need to foster civic responsibility, especially when it comes to global issues.  But to go back to Alanna’s point, our first priority should be ensuring that the United States spends scarce resources in the most effective and efficient manner. 

Efforts underway to overhaul the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act present an opportunity to advance human rights and strengthen U.S. leadership as a global collaborator. A critical step needed is prioritizing the wellbeing, rights, and empowerment of women and young people who remain at risk of poverty, illness and violence, by moving away from siloed, thematic approaches to health (i.e. HIV/AIDS, family planning, maternal health, gender equality), to a comprehensive, and more cost effective, sexual and reproductive health and rights approach that addresses individual lives holistically and according to local realities. 

Every individual needs a range of services and information to protect him/herself and live healthy and happy lives.  Local NGOs and public health experts on the ground must be able to determine the best programming for their own communities. For too long, local organizations were constricted by mandates from Washington.   U.S. foreign assistance can be restructured to better empower local communities and save many lives in the process.

I'm thrilled by this -- it's definitely a stronger and more unequivocal statement than I would have expected. I've long argued that shifts in American politics have an even greater impact on reproductive rights abroad than at home, and this seems like evidence of that. It's astonishing, after the last eight years, to see someone point to the United States as a global leader on these issues. A few years ago, who could have imagined that anyone would describe the position of the United States as  "a clear demonstration of the separation of church and state?"

I think that creating a sense of civic responsibility on the local and global level is an extremely important value to instill in people. Especially in times of economic hardship, it is important that people feel useful and engaged with their communities and the world at large. As an activist who has volunteered much of my time over the years to causes I believe in, I know that creating change and working with others to do so is a really powerful thing. However, I also think that especially in a situation like Alanna suggests, with a woman-to-woman kind of exchange, it’s important to think about the impact volunteering has on the value of women’s labor.

The theme of the 53rd Commission on the Status of Women, which took place at the beginning of March at the United Nations, was, "the equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS.” It’s important to think about this when considering infrastructure and volunteer opportunities, especially for women. Part of equal sharing of responsibilities means establishing standards for compensation and other forms of support and recognition for women’s work, especially in the caretaking context.

I totally agree with you, Alanna, that building on existing infrastructure is key;  A totally new enterprise is definitely not in the cards at this point, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that.  It would be great to build a consensus within the UN or the State Department to transform or update the Peace Corp program, but instead of "promoting peace", the mandate would be "social change" or whatever characterization is most compelling.  But modernizing the Peace Corp would be critical because it represents an earlier time and the image of rejuvenation is useful here.  I think you'd also get more volunteers on campuses across the country that way, as well.   The UN would have to find different projects from the ones they currently have, but they are constantly doing that and they already have the relationships.  There also are many programs -- even privately sponsored ones-- out there that already operate outside of the UN that can use volunteer help, so it's more a task of cataloguing and searching, rather than building from ground zero.

I love the idea of harvesting the energy, knowledge, and creativity of the people affected by the economic crisis. I know that we've seen volunteering increase all over the country as people seek to use their time in a positive way. I wonder, though, if creating a new organization is the most effective way of improving the lives of women throughout the world.

Starting a new enterprise is time-consuming and faces a steep learning curve as the new effort gets going. In addition, I suspect that it would be hard to find countries to host social change volunteers. Governments are made up of people who benefit from the status quo; how would we convince them to accept an influx of Americans determined to be change agents? In addition, identifying people with the skills and background to effectively improve women’s health and support social change will be very difficult. That’s not a skill set that is easy to acquire.

Maybe we could build on existing structures, and channel additional human energy through them; they are already set up to select skilled people and match them to need. We could expand Peace Corps, for example, and gear it more toward woman. Peace Corps volunteers already tend to be women; maybe a woman-to-woman program could be designed? PCVs could run community women’s groups, and provide education on relevant topics. We could also encourage Americans (or subsidize) to become United Nations volunteers, which would also show a new American commitment to multilateralism. Lastly, I think the new Global Health Corps is an exciting experiment in connecting young people to global health leadership opportunities.

I think one way the US -- by way of the White House -- can retake a leadership role in promoting international family planning and women's health during this time of global economic crisis is to build a small army of Social Change Volunteers who would be a modern version of Peace Corp volunteers.  And one possible market for volunteers are students, those who want to take a semester abroad, those who aren't finding work in this economy and may consider taking time abroad or even mid-career workers who want to be involved in social change. 

Sponsored by the White House, it could be implemented by the UN, but have the signature of the President or the First Lady, much the way JFK kicked off the Peace Corps.   The work would focus on fighting poverty by raising the status of women, empowering with training or funds or organization to help them manage their families, the way numerous very good on-the-ground programs are operating.

As Mark mentioned, we've seen a great start from the Obama administration. It repealed the global gag rule, and reaffirmed American commitment to women's health and global health. Talking the right talk is exactly what we need to do. Now that we've said all the right things, though, it's time to prove we mean what we say. Over the last eight years, European governments dug deep to try to replace the funding for women's health - UNFPA in particular - that didn't come from the US. If we want to regain our global leadership role on women's health, we need more than words. We need to prove our commitment by paying our fair share. Rhetoric means nothing if we don't back it up with resources. It’s hard to ramp up funding in the face of economic crisis. It’s also essential. Margaret Chan pointed out in February that women and children are going to be hardest by the damage to our global economy. Leadership in this context means making sure that the programs are in place to ameliorate that impact. That means good planning, evidence-based program design, and a multi-sectoral approach. But more than anything else, it means adequate funding.