The USFG should substantially increase it's public health assistance to sub-saharan africa.

I will assume, since my opponent is using the 2008 NFL Policy Debate topic, that she is familiar with the rules and regulations of the event. I will, therefore, hold her to those regulations, assume that she, as the affirmative, bears the burden proof, and will argue in accordance with the rules governing Policy Debate. I will first address my opponent's case and arguments before introducing my own arguments into the round. Refutation I - Definitions - My opponent introduces none. This is her responsibility as the affirmative in this debate. Her case cannot stand without definitions, and I therefore urge a negative ballot. For the purposes of debate, I shall introduce my own definitions, which may not be contested: A. "Public health assistance" - programs which increase the medical health and well-being of the individuals involved (in this case, Africans) 1. My opponent's plan deals strictly with food purchasing and redistribution, and does nothing to substantially increase public health assistance under my definition. B. "Sub-Saharan Africa" be defined as the 42 countries south of the Saharan Desert in Africa. 1. My opponent's plan must accommodate all 42 countries south of the Saharan Desert. Because money and food are distributed by and through governments, no plan can distribute such money and food to all 42 nations at once. Such a plan is destined to fail, and a negative ballot is therefore required. Refutation II - Observations - My opponent introduces none. She has introduced no evidence indicative of a problem in Africa warranting federal action. Her burden as the affirmative is first to introduced evidence of such a problem (inherency) and that such a problem is significant enough to warrant USFG intervention (significance). Her plan, therefore, solves no indicated problem, and I therefore urge a negative ballot. Refutation III - Solvency - As I have already stated, my opponent's plan solves no introduced problem. Her plan also does not solve the problem stipulated in my definitions, that being "public health assistance" in "Sub-Saharan Africa". Her plan, therefore, is non-topical, and I therefore urge a negative ballot. Now for my own arguments: Disadvantage I - Global Gag Rule - The thesis behind this disadvantage is that the US has a global gag rule - any organization or country that receives US aid can not aid or educate women about safe sex and abortion. Such information is crucial to any public health assistance program. A. Sai, 04 Advisor to the President on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS, in Ghana (Frederick, "International Commitments and Guidance on Unsafe Abortion," African Journal of Reproductive Health, Vol. 8, No. 1, April, 2004 pp. 15-28, Database: Bioline International) ". .. in Mexico City, the US government announced that it would withdraw funding from any organization that provided abortion services. .. These. .. policies. .. have the effect of undermining international consensus-building processes such as ICPD. By withdrawing from, and flip-flopping on, previously agreed upon international agreements, they lessen the hard won effects of these processes and provide African and other governments with an excuse to also not respect them. " B. AIDS is such a prevalent problem in Africa that education on the prevention of the transmission of STDS (safe sex) and abortion must be available in any competent public health assistance program. C. This gag rule forces organizations to limit their activities to improve the public health assistance towards womens' reproductive health. "The Bush Global Gag Rule" by the Center for Reproductive Rights, published in October 2000 The global gag rule is also likely to have a chilling effect on legal abortion-related activities that are technically "permitted" under the global gag rule. .. women seeking abortions that are exceptions under the global gag rule. .. may be turned away because of misinterpretation of the global gag rule. In addition, the provision of post-abortion care. .. is being curtailed because entities fear jeopardizing their funding through any association with abortion. The equipment for providing post-abortion care is the same as that used for early abortion services. .. .Health-care providers also may be reluctant to dispense emergency contraception—which acts to prevent pregnancy and is not an abortifacient—because of the global gag rule. .. .The result of the global gag rule will be increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and still more desperate women turning to illegal, dangerous abortions. " D. Impact - The gag rule causes women to die. Tamara Braam, gender specialist, and Leila Hessini, serves as senior policy adviser at Ipas, 2004, African Journal of Reproductive Health "Unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortion, and resulting high levels of maternal morality continue to cause irreparable harm to women in Africa. .. .Close to 100 African women die everyday. .. .Young women, including adolescents, suffer disproportionately, with 40% of all unsafe abortions occurring in women between the ages of 15 and 24 years. " E. It is clear that the United States federal government is not the best agency to be increasing public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa. This, in and of itself, is sufficient for a negative ballot. Counterplan - Japan should substantially increase its public health assistance to Africa. A. Non-Topicality - This plan is not topical because the United State federal government does not give aid. B. Mutual Exclusivity 1. If the United States gives aid, the global gag rule is attached. No such rule is in play if Japan gives aid. 2. Two countries providing simultaneous aid significantly complicates the distribution of such aid. C. Solvency - Japan is an effective provider of health assistance. Taro Yamamoto, Aid Planning Division, Economic Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2007 "Japan's aid commitment to health and Africa", Volume 369, Issue 9555, January 4th "Japan has an excellent history in originating global health initiatives, including the 1997 International Parasite Control Initiative. .. which proved to be the forerunner of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. .. and the Okinawa Infections Diseases Initiative. Furthermore, Japan's funding pledges to have always been fulfilled. The Infectious Diseases Initiative, for example, was planned to see expenditure of $3 billion over 5 years, yet some $4.1 billion was spent in 4 years. " Summary - To review: 1. My opponent has introduced no definitions to support her case. 2. My opponent has introduced no observations indicating a plan warranting intervention by the United States federal government. 3. My opponent's plan does not substantially increase public health assistance to Africa. 4. The global gag rule is a significant disadvantage in encouraging United States aid. 5. Japan is better suited to provide aid than the United States. For all these reasons, I urge a negative ballot in this debate.