Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to WOKF Daily with Meet
Speaker 1: your Girl Daniel Moody. Pre Recording from the Home Bunker, Folks,
Speaker 1: I'm taking a little bit of a respite before we
Speaker 1: head into the craziness of convention at the end of August,
Speaker 1: and so I'm leaving you, as always with some really
Speaker 1: good interviews. Coming up on today's episode is my conversation
Speaker 1: with Jillian Kin, who is the director of Global Policy
Speaker 1: and Research at IPASS, the leading organization working to increase
Speaker 1: access to sexual and reproductive healthcare globally. In this conversation, friends,
Speaker 1: we talk about Project twenty twenty five and how Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five is already underway in countries like Guatemala,
Speaker 1: and what we can learn about how these conservative policies
Speaker 1: are being tested outside of our borders. And you know,
Speaker 1: while Donald Trump wants to distance himself from Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, while you know, they just fired one of
Speaker 1: the leaders of Project twenty twenty five, and Trump campaign
Speaker 1: wants to release a statement and say that it's disbanded.
Speaker 1: We know that that is let me think about it, bullshit,
Speaker 1: because they have no platform outside of that and they
Speaker 1: can call it whatever the fuck name that they want
Speaker 1: to call it, But the reality is this is what
Speaker 1: Republicans want. And there is leaked audio that is now
Speaker 1: going around of Kevin Roberts, who is the president of
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation, who says that it's totally fine if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wants to distance himself publicly from Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. But guess what, they know what it is,
Speaker 1: and so they're good to go with the fucking pr
Speaker 1: game that they're trying to run on the American people.
Speaker 1: Right now, all I have to say wants a liar,
Speaker 1: always a liar, don't fall for the robodote. Coming up next,
Speaker 1: my conversation with Jillian Kane, Folks. I am very happy
Speaker 1: to welcome to OKF Daily. Gillian Kane, who is the
Speaker 1: director of Global Policy and Research at IPASS, the leading
Speaker 1: organization working to increase access to sexual and reproductive healthcare globally,
Speaker 1: monitors the rise of anti abortion and anti LGBTQ movements
Speaker 1: across the world and has been on the front lines
Speaker 1: looking at how Project twenty twenty five has been tested
Speaker 1: globally before making its way into the United States. Jillian, first,
Speaker 1: talk to us about your organization and how you came
Speaker 1: to understand or see firsthand Project twenty twenty five in
Speaker 1: action outside of the United States.
Speaker 2: Sure, thanks so much for having me on the shows.
Speaker 2: So Project twenty twenty five came to our attention via
Speaker 2: Valerie Huber. So Valerie Huber used to be in the
Speaker 2: Trump administration. She worked in the Health and Human Services Department,
Speaker 2: and we were quite interested in what she was doing
Speaker 2: because she had initiated during her time in the Trump
Speaker 2: administration this initiative, an anti abortion initiative called the Geneva
Speaker 2: Consensus Declaration in twenty twenty So we were following her
Speaker 2: and that because this project was interesting for us because
Speaker 2: it brought together about thirty six countries to sort of
Speaker 2: stand together and make a statement that was anti abortion.
Speaker 2: So as an organization that really cares about access to
Speaker 2: reproductive health, sexual rights, and abortion in particular, we really
Speaker 2: wanted to pay attention. So that's how it first came
Speaker 2: across our sitelines.
Speaker 1: So now Project twenty twenty five is probably one of
Speaker 1: the scariest documents that I think in a long time
Speaker 1: that have been created. A nine hundred page policy agenda
Speaker 1: to essentially reimagine America, reimagine what we understand and as
Speaker 1: our democratic values and norms, taking on everything from the environment,
Speaker 1: to reproductive health, to public education, so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: What your organization has seen is that this pieces of
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five have been tested, are being tested,
Speaker 1: have been rolled out globally. Talk to us about that
Speaker 1: where and where you have seen it and what information
Speaker 1: it can provide for us as we are now less
Speaker 1: than one hundred days away from the election.
Speaker 2: So again, the starting point, and I think for this conversation,
Speaker 2: the ending point really is the Geneva Consensus Declaration and
Speaker 2: then Valories Huber's work to implement it. So give a
Speaker 2: little bit more detail. Launched in the waning days of
Speaker 2: the Trump administration, twenty twenty not enforceable, it's pretty much
Speaker 2: just a piece of paper and acts as a manifesto,
Speaker 2: but it's being used by the signatory countries to really
Speaker 2: sort of data position against abortion, against diverse families, and
Speaker 2: for national sovereignty. So a lot of these elements are
Speaker 2: also a part of Project twenty twenty five. Moreover, the
Speaker 2: link is very clear between Project twenty twenty five and
Speaker 2: Geneva Consensus Declaration and then this project that Valerie Huber
Speaker 2: has started as part of her new work since leaving
Speaker 2: the previous administration. So she opened up this new shop.
Speaker 2: It's called the Institute for Women's Health, and within that
Speaker 2: she designed what she's calling a women's health project to
Speaker 2: attend to women and family and their holistic health. So
Speaker 2: these are all very nice words, but it's really absent
Speaker 2: any detail about what it includes. But she has said
Speaker 2: that Protago, and that's the name of this project, is
Speaker 2: the implementing sort of element for the Geneva Consensus declaration.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of details here, but just to
Speaker 2: step back, Geneva Consensus Declaration also makes several cameos in
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five and so in what we wanted
Speaker 2: to do and really sort of understand how it sits
Speaker 2: in this Project twenty twenty five, And as you were saying,
Speaker 2: and how we have identified is that the pieces are
Speaker 2: ready being put in place. If the protagoes to be
Speaker 2: the implementing instrument for the Geneva Consensus declaration, well they've
Speaker 2: already started and they've started it in two countries, Guatemala
Speaker 2: and Uganda.
Speaker 1: So talk to us about the Geneva consensus. Unpack it
Speaker 1: for us. What are the elements that we see in
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five, and why, in your opinion do
Speaker 1: you think that it is dangerous and something to be
Speaker 1: of note in the US.
Speaker 2: So unpacking it, it's a very short document, it's one page,
Speaker 2: the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and it has a set of
Speaker 2: four pillars which I mentioned, our family, anti abortion, and
Speaker 2: national sovereignty. The reason that this, you know, creates concern
Speaker 2: for US is that obviously, you know, abortion access is
Speaker 2: something that we believe firmly you should be available to
Speaker 2: all people, and this is setting it up as something
Speaker 2: you know, that they're explicitly going after. So the lands
Speaker 2: in Project twenty twenty five is that they say that
Speaker 2: US foreign policy should align with sort of the pillars
Speaker 2: of the Geneva Consensus Declaration, so saying, okay, when we
Speaker 2: make foreign policy decisions and specifically around overseas development aid,
Speaker 2: and also thinking about how do we fund multilateral institutions
Speaker 2: like the United Nations, like the sort of the technical
Speaker 2: bodies like UNFPA, unisef UNESCO. As we look at these
Speaker 2: entities or foreign policy, we have to look at it
Speaker 2: through the lens of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. That is
Speaker 2: very clear in Project twenty twenty five. So again, what
Speaker 2: are these pillars. Is this idea of national sovereignty, the
Speaker 2: idea of anti abortion, the idea of a heteronormative family.
Speaker 2: These are all things that are contained within the Geneva
Speaker 2: Consensus declaration. And they're saying this should be the guiding
Speaker 2: post for our foreign policy and what it does, especially
Speaker 2: around the issue of national sovereignty. And we're talking about
Speaker 2: foreign policy, is it setting up human rights versus national sovereignty.
Speaker 2: So they're saying sovereignty takes precedent over international human rights,
Speaker 2: and human rights that we do believe in are the
Speaker 2: ones that are listed here in this one page document.
Speaker 2: But also we can refer back to the previous administration
Speaker 2: who put together this Commission on Unalienable Rights. I don't
Speaker 2: know if you remember that from back in the day,
Speaker 2: where again they put together this commission to look and
Speaker 2: review US priorities around human rights and sort of land
Speaker 2: on what are the priority of human rights, which in
Speaker 2: and of itself contravenes internetia. Human rights Human rights are
Speaker 2: holistic right. You don't privilege one human right over now
Speaker 2: that you don't privilege religion over reproductive rights. Like everything
Speaker 2: has to be examined and continuum. So again there's a
Speaker 2: lot of detail, but I think it's important to note
Speaker 2: how all of these different angles are coming together with
Speaker 2: a really clear idea of how they're going to address multilateralism,
Speaker 2: overseas development aid, and women's rights in particular.
Speaker 1: So, for instance, you would look at a country, if
Speaker 1: we're living in a Trump two point zero administration, you
Speaker 1: would potentially look at whether or not you're going to
Speaker 1: be providing aid, providing resources, which we know that the
Speaker 1: United States does to foreign nations based on whether or
Speaker 1: not they have access to abortion, based on whether or
Speaker 1: not they recognize LGBTQ people as you know people. So if,
Speaker 1: in fact, let's just start there, these two things are
Speaker 1: present in the country that is seeking aid right or
Speaker 1: seeking assistance, then in the eyes of a Trump administration
Speaker 1: two point zero, you would be denied across the board.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not sure it necessarily works that way. I
Speaker 2: think it's a little bit in the reverse. So US
Speaker 2: money can't go to fund those pieces. So we have
Speaker 2: the global Gag rule for example, right, So this is
Speaker 2: the implementing policy to restrict funding for overseas development aid
Speaker 2: as it relates to abortion. So the threat, as it
Speaker 2: were from Project twenty twenty five, is that they're going
Speaker 2: to cut off funding for projects that support these issues.
Speaker 1: What would the damage be in doing that? Can you
Speaker 1: walk us through what a possible scenario would be and
Speaker 1: how that would be damaging to said country.
Speaker 2: So we know, for example, the Global Gag Rule, which
Speaker 2: is this policy piece that gets shelved around with each
Speaker 2: new administration, Democratic Republicans, right, so Democrats get rid of it,
Speaker 2: Republicans reinstated. So we know from previous administrations that when
Speaker 2: the Global Gag Rule is implemented, it cuts off aid
Speaker 2: from certain technical organizations that are providing health services, and
Speaker 2: they cut it off on the grounds that are not
Speaker 2: even on the ground saying that like if you even
Speaker 2: say the word abortion, so even talking about abortion is
Speaker 2: something that will eliminate you from getting funding. So that's
Speaker 2: something that we can anticipate in the future. And we
Speaker 2: also know there's been many studies because this policy has
Speaker 2: been around since Reagan, the harms that happen once the
Speaker 2: Global Gag Rule is reinstated, so you lose funding, unwanted
Speaker 2: pregnancies increase, and so you know the whole host of
Speaker 2: bad effects that happen when you start defunding health organizations.
Speaker 2: So that's what we can anticipate. And also we know
Speaker 2: that looking at Project twenty twenty five, they want to
Speaker 2: expanded global gagrill. They want to go even further.
Speaker 1: When we're looking and examining Project twenty twenty five and
Speaker 1: we see the dangers that this could potentially cause women
Speaker 1: and people with uteruses in this country. And you said
Speaker 1: currently in Guatemala and remind me of the other country, Uganda, Uganda.
Speaker 1: Can you talk to us about what is happening in
Speaker 1: Guatemala and Uganda and things that we should be paying
Speaker 1: attention to, because oftentimes here in the United States we
Speaker 1: don't really pay attention to those two countries in particular,
Speaker 1: but I mean in general, we're very American centric in
Speaker 1: our news coverage. So tell us what are some of
Speaker 1: the things that have been happening in those two countries
Speaker 1: and where do you see possible similarities into how these
Speaker 1: policies could be rolled out in the United States.
Speaker 2: So Valerie Huber, when she launched the for Women's Health,
Speaker 2: she started this protago project, and during her time during
Speaker 2: the previous administration, she had fostered really good relationships with
Speaker 2: the previous president of Guatemala, jama Te. They had cultivated
Speaker 2: this friendship relationship. A couple of years ago, jama Te
Speaker 2: had a big ceremony where he declared Guatemala the pro
Speaker 2: life capital of the Americas. Valeri Huver flew over there,
Speaker 2: she celebrated that event. So they go way back anyway.
Speaker 2: She starts this parteco project, which is again ostensibly to
Speaker 2: attend to women's holistic health, and she piloted in Guatemala.
Speaker 2: So this is a partnership that is done with the
Speaker 2: Guatemalan government. So again, mind you, we don't have a
Speaker 2: whole lot of details about what is included. But what
Speaker 2: we do know is Valeriy Huber's background. We know her
Speaker 2: background when she was in the previous administration. We also
Speaker 2: know when she worked at the state level in Ohio
Speaker 2: where she's from, and she has always led on abstinence
Speaker 2: only as sort of the driver for sexuality education. So
Speaker 2: we know that. We know she led on Giva Consensus
Speaker 2: declaration anti abortion, so we can fairly with some certain
Speaker 2: de assume that protago will include those elements. So what
Speaker 2: happens is they piloted in Guatemala, and if you look
Speaker 2: at her materials, and this is quite interesting and kind
Speaker 2: of circumvents normal protocols about how health projects are implemented,
Speaker 2: especially when support from outside of the country is she said,
Speaker 2: the way do we do it six steps. The first
Speaker 2: step is to get buy in from the executive, from
Speaker 2: the president. Now, I've never heard of a health project
Speaker 2: that runs through a president. That's just simply unheard of.
Speaker 2: And so again it really suggests that there is sort
Speaker 2: of a political element to what should be a health project.
Speaker 2: But you know, and she said, we have to have
Speaker 2: buy in. She did the same thing in Uganda. She traveled,
Speaker 2: she met the first lady, Janet mu seventy, same thing.
Speaker 2: They build up a partnership and then what's unclear is
Speaker 2: sort of what are the financial implications of this. What
Speaker 2: we also do know in both those countries is that
Speaker 2: high rates of sexual violence exist. Teen pregnancy is also
Speaker 2: a problem. And so what we know is we have
Speaker 2: and this kind of ties into the multilateralism piece, is
Speaker 2: we have un organizations, technical bodies like UNESCO and UNICEF
Speaker 2: who partner with the government to do projects health projects
Speaker 2: that are grounded in science, that are grounded in research. So,
Speaker 2: for example, we know comprehensive sexuality education is proven to
Speaker 2: attend to, you know, educating youth and children about empowerment
Speaker 2: about prevention. This suggested if she's coming in she valued
Speaker 2: Hubert Institute for Women's Health. What happens to the previous
Speaker 2: partnership that the country has set up with these un
Speaker 2: bodies and then sort of looking bigger with Project twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five. What happens if in a future administration funding
Speaker 2: is cut off for these entities. So we know that's
Speaker 2: going to happen. That's very clear in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: And we know what happened from the previous administration when,
Speaker 2: for example, during the pandemic they pulled funding from the
Speaker 2: World Health Organization, the pre eminent body that would you know,
Speaker 2: support global health. So again we had there is a
Speaker 2: pattern that has played out which Project twenty twenty five
Speaker 2: is picking up and it's also it's amplifying it. And
Speaker 2: so those to us are our reasons for concern it
Speaker 2: and for being alert.
Speaker 1: It's so fascinating, right because as you're talking, I think
Speaker 1: back to COVID in the United States, and I think
Speaker 1: back to the way that the Trump administration politicized public
Speaker 1: health and now, when we think about public health, even
Speaker 1: for those of us who understand the importance of public health,
Speaker 1: we see it through a very political lens because of
Speaker 1: how it was weaponized. And so when you hear things
Speaker 1: like women's holistic treatment, right, it's all of the right
Speaker 1: buzzwords in the right order, but has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with actual health.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And so when we talk, I guess, how do you
Speaker 1: think that we regain the messaging or the understanding around
Speaker 1: public health where it needs to be moved outside of
Speaker 1: the arena of politics and back into the arena of
Speaker 1: medicine and health.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not sure how to answer it, just
Speaker 2: because given you know what you're saying in COVID, I mean,
Speaker 2: you had all the experts, you had all the evidence,
Speaker 2: and then these crack pops show up and they tug
Speaker 2: on people's emotions, they tug on people's fears, and so again,
Speaker 2: you know, one can write all the reports, get them
Speaker 2: peer reviewed, have them in you know, leading journals, it
Speaker 2: seems to not make a difference. So you know, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure what the answer is, but I do know
Speaker 2: that what the harm is. And so, you know, replacing
Speaker 2: science and evidence with you know, ideology right, yeah, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, and that's that's the zone that we're going into.
Speaker 2: And again, I mean, I think this has been said
Speaker 2: many times Visa v Project twenty twenty five, but really
Speaker 2: it's a it's a handbook for a certain person, right.
Speaker 2: It privileges the rights of a certain person. It's generally white,
Speaker 2: it's generally a man, and it's generally someone of the
Speaker 2: Christian faith. And so you know, all of this is
Speaker 2: so alienating to everybody else who happens to populate the world,
Speaker 2: that happens to populate the United States. So yeah, what
Speaker 2: would you.
Speaker 1: Say then needs to be the alone arm that goes
Speaker 1: off that people truly understand, because I think that in
Speaker 1: this country, right with the overturning of Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: I think it was the first time in said fifty
Speaker 1: years where women and people with uteruses understood that the
Speaker 1: possibility that a right could be taken away, that bodily
Speaker 1: autonomy could be taken away, that now you have young
Speaker 1: girls who have less rights and less autonomy than their
Speaker 1: parents and their grandparents did. And so you know, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it takes the loss of something so major like Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade in order to awaken the masses to what the
Speaker 1: larger agenda is. And so when you see that these
Speaker 1: things are readily being accepted and unfolding globally, you know,
Speaker 1: what is the alarm that should go off for people
Speaker 1: in the United States as they look abroad for either
Speaker 1: a guidance or in fear of what could possibly be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think all of these pieces are
Speaker 2: a bit abstract to most people, you know, even the
Speaker 2: fact that the fall of Row was something that came
Speaker 2: to a shock to a lot of people. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think, you know, there's certainly you know, folks like
Speaker 2: ourselves who are watching this and it wasn't such a surprise.
Speaker 2: So I think, you know, talking about the export of hate,
Speaker 2: the export of anti feminism that is all embedded in
Speaker 2: this Project twenty twenty five. I mean, I'm not sure
Speaker 2: how to realise alarm. I think I would maybe invert
Speaker 2: the question and say, how can we alert our partners
Speaker 2: overseas that this is what's coming down the pipeline. I
Speaker 2: think that's where we can sort of, you know, get
Speaker 2: the right attention and sort of this this again in
Speaker 2: previous administrations, we know how this plays out, and Project
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five is promising that it's going to be
Speaker 2: a whole lot worse. You know, it's going to be
Speaker 2: tur road charge. And so what are the pieces? The
Speaker 2: pieces are funding for Multila, the United Nations. Right, So
Speaker 2: already the UN is an all liquidity crisis, you know,
Speaker 2: recently there's literally like shutting the lights out early to
Speaker 2: save money. I mean, it's bad. And the US is
Speaker 2: one of the biggest contributors to the UN, if not
Speaker 2: the big guess so what happens to that? I mean,
Speaker 2: and not to say that like, you know, the UN
Speaker 2: is the end all on the b all. It's very problematic,
Speaker 2: but it's what we got and it's what we're working with.
Speaker 2: So if that goes away, what are the dangers and
Speaker 2: who's going to come in and sort of save us?
Speaker 2: So in the previous administration, when the Global Gag Rule
Speaker 2: was introduced, immediately there was a lot of global solidarity.
Speaker 2: A lot of you know, northern countries who supply you know,
Speaker 2: development aid came and said, okay, so the funding loss
Speaker 2: that's going to happen from this Global Gag rule, we're
Speaker 2: going to make it up and we're going to set
Speaker 2: up I don't think that's going to happen this time, right,
Speaker 2: So I think you start at the beginning of the conversation.
Speaker 2: You know, the global shift to the right, the elections
Speaker 2: in the European Parliament, you know, the elections at the
Speaker 2: national level in Europe's all of that is changing the
Speaker 2: dynamic that we counted on in twenty sixteen. So I
Speaker 2: think that's another red flag, if you will coming down
Speaker 2: the pipeline.
Speaker 1: Jillian, I really appreciate you coming on and providing these
Speaker 1: insights and kind of raising the alarm globally at a
Speaker 1: time when we're very much focused domestically. Tell folks how
Speaker 1: they can learn more about IPASS, you know, get involved,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I say, plug into our website ipass dot org.
Speaker 2: We have a lot of information and ways to get
Speaker 2: in touch with us, and we have a dedicated page
Speaker 2: of research that addresses the questions around Project twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five and Protego and ye feel free to email us too.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for making the time for woke.
Speaker 1: If really appreciate you. That is it for me today,
Speaker 1: Dear friends on wokf as always power to the people
Speaker 1: and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay
Speaker 1: woke as fuck,