“John Stuart Mill wouldn't let this happen” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The nineteenth-century British economist John Stuart Mill is recognized primarily in modern economics and philosophy for two reasons. He refined the utilitarian principles established by Jeremy Bentham and reiterated the priority of individual freedom and self-determination against the intrusion of the majority into democratic societies (Buchholz, 1990). However, one part of Mill's contribution has been largely overlooked: his call for legal and social equality for women in an 1861 volume entitled The Subjection of Women. This work is especially important and relevant in the current era of President Trump, as women's rights are once again undermined and eroded. This article will argue that, based on his defense of women's suffrage, if he were alive today, F Mill would also defend women's right to choose. Given that, even before the start of his presidency, efforts by President Trump and his appointees to undermine access to birth control have been thwarted. inflexible. At the beginning of the third presidential debate, Trump spoke out harshly against abortion. He has stated that, if elected, he will appoint only pro-life judges to the Supreme Court and that Roe v. Wade will be “automatically” canceled. While that's not how the Supreme Court works, Trump has made it clear that his agenda would let the "states make up their own minds" on the issue. During an interview with MSNBC during his presidential campaign, Trump noted that “there has to be some form of punishment (TPMTV, 2016)” for women who seek abortions. With this rhetoric, it is not surprising that anti-choice activists feel emboldened by Donald Trump's presidency to attack women's health and rights. Trump has also appointed a number of abortion rights opponents to key positions in the administration. One such example is Scott Lloyd, who as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement prevented young immigrant women in federal custody from obtaining abortions (ACLU, 2018). Whatever your personal views, Trump appointees and their actions could put reproductive health care out of reach for millions of women, especially those living in poverty. During his time in office, Trump has taken measures that limit women's right to choose by limiting their access. to a full range of family planning options. In January 2017, Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule (GGR). This policy prevents foreign organizations that receive U.S. international family planning funds from providing legal abortion information, referrals, or services or from advocating for access to abortion services in their country, even with their own money (Planned Parenthood, 2018). Reinstating the GGR was among the list of rules, regulations and executive orders that the Freedom Caucus, a group of more conservative House Republicans, had asked of the new administration in Trump's first 100 days in office (Office of Congressman Mark Meadows , 2016). “When Trump took office, it was assumed that he would sign a version of a global gag because this is just ping-pong policy, policy that turns every administration on its head,” said a former US government official. “What was a surprise was the massive expansion of the GGR. And how quickly it was done” (Center For Health And Gender Equity, 2018). The Trump GGR is more restrictive and broadscope than any previous iteration of the policy, impacting not only reproductive health programs but every single area of ​​global health service delivery funded by the U.S. government. Foreign NGOs now face the untenable choice of stopping conducting abortion-related activities or losing U.S. funding. These organizations have been forced to limit essential services ranging from HIV prevention and maternal health to gender-based violence and nutrition. This is just the beginning of the far-reaching impacts of the GGR. Marie Stopes International, an international non-governmental organization that provides contraception and safe abortion services in countries around the world, estimates that due to the loss of funding and related disruption of services it will see under the Trump GGR, 1, 6 million women will lose access to contraceptives from a qualified MSI provider each year (MSI, 2017). Additionally, from 2017 to 2020, cuts to related programs and impacts to clients are expected to result in: 6.5 million unintended pregnancies; 2.2 million abortions; 2.1 million unsafe abortions; 21,700 maternal deaths; $400 million in direct healthcare costs (World Health Organization, 2008). The ripple effect of President Trump's policy decisions, no matter how well-intentioned, will have a negative impact on the international community of women seeking support, resources and help regarding various aspects of their health. A series of policies promoted by the Trump administration have also had serious impacts on women's health. reproductive rights also at the national level. Two rules enacted in October 2017 severely undermined the birth control benefit of the Affordable Care Act, allowing virtually any boss to deny coverage to their employees based on a religious or moral objection. The first rule created an exemption based on religious beliefs and the second created an exemption based on moral beliefs. In parallel, the Department of Justice has issued guidance to federal agencies encouraging a dangerously broad interpretation of religious freedom laws that threaten to open the door to discrimination against LGBT people, women, and religious minorities (Sessions, 2017). This creates immense loopholes for employers to deny women birth control coverage, a benefit that would otherwise be guaranteed by law. The rules undermine the Affordable Care Act's coverage guarantee for birth control without copays. The birth control benefit had allowed women to choose any contraceptive method approved by the Food and Drug Administration for free. Since it went into effect in 2012, it is estimated that women have saved more than $1 billion on birth control pills alone thanks to the ACA in 2013. This has given women more power to make decisions about their lives, their families and about their future. What would Mill say you think about these proceedings? Let's first analyze the issue at hand. The debate over women's control over their reproductive choices has two parts. The first is women's right to equal treatment. The second is the involvement of the government in the choices of its citizens. Mill wrote extensively on the topic of women's equality. She lived in a time when women were subordinate to men by law and custom. They were expected to marry, raise children, and dedicate themselves to their families. In most cases they could not pursue a formal education, own property or accumulate wealth, vote, serve on juries, exercise.