Funding for “To the Contrary,” provided by: This week, on “To the Contrary,” first, how investing in women's health could boost global economies and recognizing women's suffrage with a national monument.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to “To the Contrary,” a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first, women's health.

A new report from the World Economic Forum, or WEF, suggests investing in women's health could unlock $400 billion in global GDP annually by 2040.

The report identifies nine critical health conditions, including breast and ovarian cancer and menopause, that could reduce global disease and improve women's health.

The WEF has a collaborative relationship with the World Health Organization, which is a United Nations agency.

This week, on his first day in office, President Trump ordered the U.S. to pull out of the WHO.

Joining me on the panel this week are Republican strategist Ann Stone, Debra Carnahan, former judge and federal prosecutor.

Democratic strategist Nailah Amaru, and Marilyn Colon, vice chair of the Woodbridge, New Jersey GOP.

So, Debra, is this WEF report credible and will it ever take place or happen if the U.S. pulls out of the WHO?

Those are great questions.

I kind of wondered that myself.

What would be the impact of this report, besides the implementation?

If the U.S. pulls out, I don't think it would stop the implementation, but it certainly would be a big player in getting this moving forward in supporting the recommendations that came out of the report.

So hopefully we won't pull out, or we will join in, but that remains to be seen.

Well, in any event, we do know that it takes a year at least under the treaty, to pull out of the WHO.

So there's, I would presume, a year's worth of money unless the Trump administration has legal maneuvers I'm not aware of and they probably do.

But anyway.

Ann your thoughts.

My thoughts are the WHO is over a decade behind where they should have been on this.

These are things that we were talking about in the late 80s, early 90s.

Not to mention the early 2000s.

Women more and more at the table and all these legislatures across the world.

And they've been pushing on this.

And for WHO, it's like they're following behind, a lot of the countries, it was a matter of getting women at the table, elected at the table to make this happen.

I think it will happen whether we're in it or not.

And it's well overdue.

I mean, WHO is really late to the table on this.

What do we put into the WHO about something under $800 billion, million dollars?

Something like that.

I mean it's just this is ridiculous.

I mean, seriously, this is decades in the making, so.

Nailah, do you think, and welcome to the program, by the way.

Do you think it's ridiculous?

You know, I really hope that, you know, folks, take heed about the about the about the report's findings, because I think it's really important to pivot the economic framing of women's health.

As a growth driver, that really helps incentivize policy makers.

Because there is a gendered aspect, when we're talking about women's health and how oftentimes governments with high health disparities, can hopefully, with the report's findings, align their own initiatives with their developmental goals.

I'm really hoping that there's an opportunity for there to be a more serious conversation about the relationship between economic well-being and women's health.

And this report's findings have an opportunity to begin and continue those conversations.

Your thoughts, Marilyn.

Whether we leave WHO or not, it doesn't stop us as a country to move forward and focus on women's health.

It is up to us.

And the findings are not miraculous.

We knew about this years ago.

Private sector are always running marketing and looking at these numbers and health in general.

Pharma is always focused on what their next step is.

This information is not new.

And as a country, we can independently work within our own teams with our own local legislation to also move forward with the topics at hand.

What will this do economically to American companies who want to do business in the countries where our WHO money was going?

I asked that because many years ago I was in Morocco and had dinner with some people from USAID and, whom we were covering, and a French telecom company had just gotten the contract to provide all cell service in Morocco.

And I asked them about it and asked why France, we were clearly the world leader at that point on cellular service, and I was told that it was because the French government puts a whole lot more money into Morocco than the American government.

And while we are pulling out, China is still at the table with the WHO.

China has rushed ahead of us in the last few decades with aid to Asian and African countries and building a lot of goodwill with them.

So please tell me your thoughts on the economic impact of this.

Well, I'm not worried about China getting in there and advocating for women.

It's not what they do.

They build libraries and stadiums and splashy projects and all that.

But wait a minute Ann because Yeah.

Ann, because this is not about women.

This is about money that these governments get from which countries and of course, they're going to throw their own very lucrative contracts, as I told you about in Morocco, to companies in countries where they're getting a lot of government support.

But if the goal is to get them to spend more money on women's health, that's going to happen because as Marilyn said too and others have said so.

I'm bullish on the future for this.

And I'm bullish on them forcing WHO, perhaps from the country out as opposed to the WHO in to advocate more for women's health.

Everybody agree?

Debra?

Well, I'm not sure I agree with Ann on getting the women's health organization out.

I think, being cooperative and working together is definitely a better way to address this issue worldwide.

I know that there's been a lot of backlash from the current president that we have now about the World Health Organization.

And I think part of that is a backlash about Covid and what we saw during that time and not agreeing with the recommendations about the seriousness of Covid and the rapid spread and cause, etc.

So I think that it really behooves us to reconsider our positioning as the United States on what we're doing with the World Health Organization.

That may not happen in the next four years, but we definitely should be looking at this, seriously.

And one other thing that I want to point out.

Yes, China does go into Asia and Africa and do a lot of things.

Yes, there are splashy programs, but they also and I saw this years ago, when we were in Ethiopia, they're building bridges.

They were working on infrastructure and building the well.

And so there's a lot that China has been doing that isn't just splashy.

But, you know, we.

Have to.

Yeah, I mean, I was also in Ethiopia about a little less than a decade ago and saw where they built, you know, in and out about us.

About they had built highways, brand new highways, unlike what the country had any equivalent to, before they got there and whole cities, apartment buildings, lots of complexes.

They wanted to clear out the slums.

And when I say slums, I mean really people living under four wooden posts and a corrugated iron or metal roof and put them into apartments with kitchens and bathrooms, etc., etc.

And I also want to say, when I was there in Ethiopia, George W. Bush was plastered all over the country on billboards and this and that as a total hero because they were getting U.S. funding and I'm not sure if it was through WHO or not, but U.S. funding to fight AIDS, which was particularly bad in that country.

Doesn't Donald Trump want to be idolized the way George W. Bush was in some of these countries or no?

You tell me, Marilyn.

The contributions of the WHO again, it's it is.

We as a country, excuse me, we as a country could also achieve those.

And we have been giving aids throughout the world.

So it's not just limited to one area.

We are strategically also sending aid throughout the world.

We have built the world.

So, for the U.S., our focus should be and is as Donald Trump's agenda is to focus on us, building on us.

And, the woman's health, again, it's something that we can, as a country, come together working with our states.

Let's not forget that we have states that can work together through the legislation or private sectors to contribute to any health problems that do arise, are known for us.

And, the, I work in pharma and there is always an outreach, there's always some sort of clinical trial, and there's always marketing to see how we can tap into the unmet needs.

Not only for the U.S., but it's global.

So we have those numbers and it is again, like I was saying, if China is investing in other countries, that doesn't mean that we're not investing.

But it was clearly not as much.

And China was, it was everywhere.

It was all over the country.

And I've seen it in many other countries too.

Papua New Guinea, for example.

In Sierra Leone, they built libraries in a country where there was a 15% literacy rate.

In Guyana and Suriname, I mean, these are all places I've been personally.

They built stadiums again, in some cases libraries, bridges or splashy projects, if it's something that they need.

But they like to do demonstrable things, things that help people directly, like what we're talking about today are not things they get involved in.

It is things that I can see Trump advocating through private organizations, even through some targeted government work because the case could be made to him, and he would recognize immediately the importance of restoring women's health in these countries as improving their economies, which would keep them from immigrating away.

Well, there's that, but also but what do you think the impact, assuming we pull out as he has as president has ordered happen.

That should happen.

What's going to be the impact on American businesses that are getting contracts from these countries because of the our WHO contributions that go to them?

Well, I don't know that we can measure that exactly, but I would bet it would be minimal and it can be made up other ways.

So if the American countries are providing the best service, they're still going to get the contract, you know, and they'll do it also to try to curry favor with Trump by keeping American companies engaged.

Because if they cut us off, they'll enjoy his wrath, which they want to avoid.

Private sector.

We have private laws and guidelines that are followed, not necessarily with the WHO, the WHO's guidelines.

But yes, there are companies who go out there.

They have their lawyers and they work across the ocean for their personal gain as well, because we're talking about private companies.

We don't necessarily need to be connected to the WHO or contribute so much to the WHO.

Thank you for that, Marilyn.

Nailah, do you think we could be costing American businesses contracts from these countries?

Potentially.

I think it's really important to recognize the relationship between economics and global labor market and women's health.

And how there are, clearly, you know, implications to the divestment of women's health, which is what the WHO was asking to have, you know, governments consider for the addressing disparities in health outcomes because that does have a direct impact on workforce productivity, labor force participation.

And through a more domestic lens, here in America, again, I think that America, being who we are, oftentimes know we are held as an example.

And so the need for a robust, domestic investment intentionally into women's health, I think its really important because it can influence other, you know, organizations like the WHO, potentially the World Bank, G7, so on and so forth.

And we're talking about a very intentional need to advocate for women's health equity.

And also, again, I think bringing to the conversation expansion of health programs that really target women in developing regions.

And again, I think the other aspect to this is the potential facilitation between public and private partnerships to improve access and to improve delivery, that improve women's health outcomes, because it has a direct impact on economics and the economy globally.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter @bonnieerbe.

From health to historical recognition.

In one of his last acts in office, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would build a new monument dedicated to women's suffrage on the National Mall.

This monument honors the women who fought for the right to vote and their pivotal role in American history.

It has overcome significant barriers but still has no approved site or design.

A proposed women's history museum is in a similar situation.

It has garnered important funders but still does not have a site, and so our own Ann Stone, who is co-founder of the Women's History Museum, which is now online but not yet with a site on the mall.

Tell us about the relationship between this monument, which I know was pulled together by, I think, a different, totally different group of women from the Women's History Museum.

But what would the relationship be and how will it help or hurt the Women's History Museum if this group gets a spot on the mall?

Well, just as when we launched in 1996, people said, “Oh, Billie Holiday and women in the arts are going to hate you, and they're going to see competition.

They're going to try to shut you down.” Went to see Billie, told her that, she said, “These people are dumb.” You know, we need more, not fewer, not fewer women involved in pushing projects like this.

We see it the same way.

And the group that's involved moved very quickly because they were insiders.

They were attached to the Capitol architects office, and we applaud them for that.

However, they have their bill, they have no site and they have no approval of design.

So it's kind of hollow for now.

Getting the site is the real problem.

And we found that when we went after a site before we partnered with the Smithsonian, we always knew once we got approval to have a women's history museum on the mall that we would have, we'd have to go through the Smithsonian because they administer just about all the museums that are on the mall.

We had no problem with that.

So that was from the get go.

So we gave $1 million for the commission that actually set up the study that approved having Smithsonian develop women's history, albeit it's, you know, a century behind where it should be.

But that's okay.

And another reason that we did it as a separate organization from Smithsonian initially was because we were told by the female curators that they moved very slowly.

And that's been the case, you know, 2016, this is approved.

Not much has happened.

They're starting to raise some bigger bucks, which is good.

But again, where that building's going to end up being, I can tell them that Marsha Blackburn and Donald Trump actually identified some possible options on the mall.

One of which in particular, I thought was great.

Because he's not going to be in favor of building new buildings, believe it or not, as a builder, because he says we already have so many we're not using.

Now, the relationship to the group that's pushing the monument.

It's going to be one of total cooperation.

Our group remains involved, like I said, in both operations, we're partners in both, with the Smithsonian, we do a lot more, but we provide the programing, we provide the outreach.

We have over 5 million hits to our website.

We are the chief source of women's history in the world, not just the United States.

And we have hundreds of thousands of organizations that download our lesson plans that we built for teachers, etc., and that will remain our function even when the Smithsonian building is open.

That's not something they're going to be doing.

Let me ask you this question.

Then we should go to other peopl Congress passed a law in 2003 saying no more monuments or museums on the mall, right?

Right.

How is that impacting your and their pushes to get this monument and this museum on the mall?

It'll only impact the Smithsonian if they don't use a preexisting building in there.

Again, are a few options that they can use, one of which I'm in favor of, and probably shouldn't really talk about that, without talking to the Smithsonian.

But there's one in particular and Trump would be in favor of and he was very much behind, he actually favors having a women's history museum.

So he's not going to be the impediment.

In terms of the site for the statue, that's going to be problematic.

And so it's going to be, need a lot more work, a lot more push to actually let them do that.

D.C. has been against putting more on the mall.

There was a huge coalition besides the Congress that was dead set, and we actually got them to bend with us.

And we're considering the site across from the African American Museum on the other side of the mall.

That literally is parallel with it.

They were leaning towards saying, yeah, they would actually allow, you know, allow us or would back us to have that site.

But there are a couple of preexisting buildings on the mall that could be used for the Women's History Museum, one of which makes the most sense.

Theres certain constituencies that would not be happy about it, but it can be done.

Your thoughts Nailah.

So I think that this is I think that Ann framed I think two key issues.

I think when we move both of these projects forward, is the legal lens and the political lens, again, like the, you know, invite potential environmental assistance, site approvals, upset constituencies, leads us into more of the political challenges.

I think also, why now I think is also an interesting element into how these things happen.

You know, political timing, is key in a lot of these things.

And I also think it's interesting that we have two projects, that represent the history of the women's suffrage movement, but in very different ways.

Again, a monument is more, it's external.

It's meant for, I think, reflection, which can really be good at generating conversations.

And a museum is more of the, the educational infrastructure, if you will, and provides more, deeper conversations through programing, outreach events, so on and so forth.

I do think it's a step forward in a sense of depending on how these monuments, how the monument, is designed.

The impact that has on how people understand the history of the women's suffrage movement.

And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, you know, a criticism of the women's suffrage movement is that it historically has tended to focus on white middle class women and has come to erase the contributions and impact of women of color and women of other identities.

So it's an important development.

But again, each development moving forward requires political will, political savvy.

And good political timing.

And on that point, that interesting point you made, New York has a monument to women's suffrage and includes Sojourner Truth, which, you know, a women of color.

Will the, do you think the design, do you have any inclination of how the design would go in terms of including diverse leaders?

Just very quickly, I love that question.

But I think fundamentally, whatever the design of this monument is, is that it represents women, and all of our identities as our identities impact our lived experiences of how we understand and have access to the American dream.

And also to not take away the importance of a monument is a physical testament to how women have essentially been the architects of American democracy in many, many ways.

And making sure that we are intentional in design, that representation of all of our experiences as women, regardless of our identities, is reflected in whatever physical design comes out of this potential monument.

Marilyn, your thoughts and then Debra, please.

That, a wonderful comments.

I totally agree with all the comments said so far.

And, I one minor observation, I know the focus is on key areas where there's a lot of visitors to Washington, D.C. and in New York, but bringing it down to the educational level, statewide.

I know growing up I would have loved to have seen more of that education for me, growing up in a limited community.

But, knowing that there was more behind the statue that provides education and would have guided me a little bit better.

As I was growing up, just the education behind a statue.

So, yeah, I, I so agree with all the comments and I applaud what Ann is doing, this is wonderful.

And Debra, you close us out please.

I'm, very briefly, I'm just goin to say I think it's fantastic.

And I'm sure all the things that all the panelists just talked about will be considered in the design, it's not going to make everybody happy, but it's a great step forward.

Well, well, well deserved for the women's suffrage movement and also for women right now who are pushing every day to advance women and doing so many great things in this country.

So I can't wait to see it.

Thank you all for your wonderful contributions.

That's it for this edition of “To the Country.” Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, the address on the screen.

And whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for “To the Contrary,” provided by: