This Group Isn’t Afraid of the ‘A’ Word. Is it Time for Philanthropy to Take a Stronger Stand?

This week, the country learned, via a draft opinion leaked to Politico, that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that guaranteed the right to abortion. Chief Justice John Roberts has condemned the leak and insisted the opinion is a preliminary draft, but advocates on both sides are already protesting on the steps of the court and across the country, and Democratic leaders at the federal and state level are vowing to protect abortion rights.

For a while now, abortion has been so charged and divisive in the U.S. that just raising the issue can be controversial. Still, Ipas, the only international nongovernmental organization that focuses exclusively on expanding global abortion and contraception access, doesn’t use euphemisms or try to disguise its goals. “Abortion is healthcare” is written in bold font across the Ipas landing page, and it considers “reducing and understanding abortion stigma” as part of its mission.

Ipas provides funding for abortion and contraception in countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas. For 20 years, Ipas has given small grants to community-based groups working to improve access to contraception and safe abortion care. It also conducts research and training, and distributes informational resources and advocacy tools. This work is part of the organization’s larger mission: “...to build sustainable abortion ecosystems that address all factors impacting a person’s ability to access abortion — from individual health knowledge, to social and community support, to a trained health workforce, to political leadership and supportive laws,” according to Ipas’ website.

Over the years, Ipas’ funders have included many of the U.S. grantmakers most active in the reproductive rights space, such as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Libra Foundation, the Channel Foundation and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

Between 2019 and 2021, approximately 92% of the group’s funding came from foundation grants, and 3% came from individual donors (5% comes from contracts). The organization receives funding from some European governments, but no U.S. government dollars.

Stigma in the philanthrosphere

Organizations like Ipas, which operate squarely in the realm of abortion care and abortion rights, aren’t too common, and a lack of funding is part of the reason why. Abortion stigma is clearly a factor in the world of philanthropy. According to Inside Philanthropy’s brief, “Giving for Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice,” “Some actors in mainstream reproductive health and rights philanthropy have historically shied away from funding abortion-specific work, and abortion funds in particular have received a small proportion of support within the reproductive rights field.”

Inside Philanthropy’s Dawn Wolfe recently explored the many ways philanthropy has fallen short on protecting abortion rights, and wrote that “pro-abortion-rights philanthropy seriously needs to up its game.” Wolfe was referring to support for abortion rights in the United States. But funders that support global reproductive health have also been shy about channelling money to abortion.

Ipas President and CEO Anu Kumar pointed out that two of the largest funders of international family planning, the U.S. government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, support contraception and other aspects of reproductive health, but not abortion. “The Gates Foundation has focused on maternal mortality but not abortion — even though unsafe abortion is one of the five leading causes of maternal mortality,” she said. “So two of the largest donors in our sector don’t touch abortion care. That’s a pretty big loss.”

The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation’s abortion rights giving has been anonymous since the early 2000s, as IP has reported. Referring to this policy, Wolfe wrote, “The anonymity of such a huge supporter of the field — and the overall lack of direct funding for abortion rights, services and access — convey a kind of timidity and restraint among those funding the cause, especially considering how vocal, public and omnipresent so many abortion rights opponents are.”

What’s at stake

This timidity in the funding realm belies the vast harm that comes from restricting abortion access, both in terms of health and in terms of equity and human rights. According to statistics from the World Health Organization, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year, and tens of thousands more suffer health complications. There is also evidence that restrictive laws actually increase the number of abortions.

Moreover, women of color are hardest hit when safe abortion care isn’t available. Kumar sees this in countries where her organization works. “A lot of our programs are in sub-Saharan Africa,” she said. “And the deaths and disability, the injuries that are occurring from unsafe abortion, are not randomly distributed. It is Black and brown women that are suffering and dying from unsafe abortions.”

We already know that, according to research, the U.S. states with the most restrictive abortion policies “have the worst maternal and child outcomes, and are least likely to invest in at-risk populations.” A recent study concluded that a total abortion ban in the U.S. will result in an increased number of pregnancy-related deaths — particularly for Black women. Researchers estimate that such a ban would lead to a 21% increase in the number of pregnancy-related deaths overall and a 33% increase among Black women. (These numbers indicate pregnancy-related deaths; increased deaths caused by unsafe abortions or attempted abortions would be in addition to these estimates).

“Healthcare, not a crime”

Kumar pointed out that many foundations that champion women’s causes sidestep the abortion issue. “Even many donors that loudly and proudly declare themselves to be supporters of women’s rights don’t fund abortion,” she said. “Many of them prefer to do what I call ‘brand feminism.’ They’re interested in girls’ education or women entrepreneurs — you know, things that are absolutely necessary and good, but not stigmatized or controversial. They’re not willing to take a risk.”

What if more funders were willing to take a risk and support abortion rights and access? Certainly, they’d risk some blowback from anti-abortion groups. But if enough funders began stepping up in earnest, strength in numbers might encourage even more partners to step forward, a virtuous cycle that would help fortify the movement against critics and, more importantly, improve the lives and the futures of women in the U.S. and around the globe.

In the U.S., the forces arrayed against abortion rights clearly have the upper hand, as the leaked Supreme Court document shows, and many states have already passed or are considering restrictive abortion laws. But in other parts of the world, trends are going in the other direction. For instance, Kumar recently visited Mexico City, where abortion was legalized in 2007. Ipas worked with other activists and government leaders over many years to bring that legislation about.

As Kumar wrote on the Ipas website, nearly 250,000 women across Mexico have had abortions since the law was passed, and there have been no abortion-related deaths in the Federal District of Mexico (as Mexico City is known) during that time. Kumar marveled at the attitude toward abortion at one clinic she visited: “[I] was immediately struck by the fact that the word ‘abortion’ was spoken openly, not whispered. Abortion was being recognized for what it is: healthcare, not a crime.”

In international terms, the last several decades have seen progress on abortion rights. “I’ve been at Ipas for 20 years, but I’ve worked in this field for 25-plus years, and since the mid 1990s, over 40 countries have liberalized their abortion laws,” Kumar said. “Only a handful have gone backwards to make abortion more restrictive, and the United States is one of them. So we’re very much out of step with the rest of the world.”

Mary Fitzgerald, director of expression at the Open Society Foundations, made the same point in a New York Times op-ed and observed, “If Roe falls, the United States will […] join a small cadre of increasingly authoritarian countries that have become more restrictive on abortion in recent years.”

Despite what the Supreme Court appears poised to decide, a majority of Americans support legal abortion in all or most cases. And a poll conducted last week found that a majority believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Isn’t it time for philanthropy to take a stronger stand?

Featured