Advancements in Pro-Life Policies Under the Trump Administration

The Trump administration has made significant moves—some quite groundbreaking—to promote pro-life policies both in the U.S. and worldwide.

One important action President Trump could take to reinforce the protection of life and convey a strong pro-life message globally is to enforce an existing but perhaps underrecognized law known as the Siljander Amendment, established in 1981.

Recently, Trump expanded the Mexico City Policy significantly. This law disqualifies organizations that advocate for or provide abortions from receiving U.S. foreign aid. The updated policy not only closes important loopholes from earlier versions but also broadens its reach to include aspects such as gender ideology and equity issues along with abortion.

A notable addition to this policy is its application to multilateral organizations. This is crucial because U.N. agencies and the Organization of American States often receive substantial U.S. funding while promoting abortion practices.

Historically, the Mexico City Policy has been an executive order that has been put in place and lifted by Republican presidents, only to be reversed by Democratic ones since the 1980s.

It’s important to note that it complements an earlier law—the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. funds to directly promote or provide abortions overseas.

The rationale for the Mexico City Policy is based on the idea that money is transferable; it’s quite complex to argue that U.S. taxpayer funds do not support abortion initiatives abroad when U.S.-funded Planned Parenthood affiliates claim their abortion services are funded separately.

The Siljander Amendment addresses another concern by prohibiting U.S. funds from being employed to lobby for or against abortion. This sort of lobbying is something that U.S. aid recipients are known to engage in globally.

During Trump’s first term, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cut funding to two branches of the Organization of American States—the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission of Women—because they were advocating for abortion legalization in Latin America and the Caribbean.

While a similar stance wasn’t taken with U.N. agencies at that time, it seems appropriate to consider it now, given that these organizations persistently lobby for abortion rights, which violates the Siljander Amendment.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has supported various entities that monitor human rights treaties, many of which have openly urged countries to fully decriminalize abortion, legalize it without restrictions, and disregard the rights of healthcare providers to refuse participation.

Another U.N. body known for its advocacy for abortion is the Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction. Although it operates within the World Health Organization, it collaborates with several U.N. agencies that have benefited from U.S. funding recently.

A 2022 guideline released by this program recommended total decriminalization of abortion, asserting that it should be available at a woman’s request, without any conditions based on grounds or gestational limits. An update expected in 2025 is likely to propose stricter limitations on conscientious objection.

This program often shares graphics promoting messages like “abortion is healthcare” and “abortion should never be criminalized.”

It’s crucial to note that there is no globally accepted human right to abortion; member states of the U.N. agree that individual governments should determine its legal status.

The Siljander Amendment remains U.S. law and should govern taxpayer funding directed toward multilateral institutions, which have historically received substantial support from the U.S.

This law needs to be enforced regardless of the political climate or the preferences of whoever occupies the White House. As stated, it would equally apply to any U.N. agency that campaigns against abortion—though pinpointing such an agency might be more challenging than achieving the U.N.’s fundamental missions, like addressing war and poverty.

To maintain Trump’s track record of cutting funding to organizations that contradict American values, a thorough examination of this rarely used tool may be in order.