Report: US Policy of Keeping Abortion Out of Global Health is Largely Successful

By and Lisa Correnti | August 19, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. August 21 (C-Fam) On Tuesday, the U.S. agencies released a report on President Trump’s controversial foreign assistance policy that purports to provide quality health care overseas while keeping pro-abortion groups out of the funding loop. The report claims success and is sure to draw the ire of abortion groups.

The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) program —colloquially known as Mexico City Policy— blocks U.S. funding to foreign organizations that provide or promote abortion overseas in 37 of the 64 countries receiving global health assistance. It was announced in the early days of Trump’s presidency and expanded to cover not just family planning funding, but all global health projects.  It was first introduced under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980 and has been reinstated by Republican presidents ever since.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of State, and the Department of Health and Human Services found that only eight of 1,340 prime grant recipients and 47 sub-recipients rejected the policy and therefore received no funding.  In most cases, the funding was then reassigned to a different grantee and service delivery was not disrupted.

The report noted that the organizations refusing to agree to policy terms worked in a variety of health areas, including HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, tuberculosis, and nutrition, as well as family planning.  This finding reflects the broadening of the policy by President Trump into areas other than family planning, but it also demonstrates that abortion groups have successfully infiltrated other areas of global health.

Congressional Members are calling to expand the prohibition into more policy areas. Humanitarian response efforts are currently exempt from the policy, and abortion giants like Marie Stopes International (MSI), and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) have increasingly shifted their focus to this area.  Other areas where abortion groups still access U.S. funds are gender-based violence response and activities promoting the status of women and girls in society.

Abortion organizations in 27 sub-Sahara African and Southeast Asian countries remain eligible for U.S. grants due to their abortion laws allowing for the same exceptions permitted in the renewed and expanded Mexico City Policy. U.S. funded abortion groups are likely using U.S. health funds to pressure these countries to change their abortion laws.

Multilateral organizations like the United Nations are also exempt from Mexico City Policy, a loophole that becomes important when considering that the U.S. is the largest donor country to the UN and its agencies, many of which partner with IPPF, MSI, and other abortion groups.

Opponents of President Trump and Mexico City Policy will focus on the delays and disruptions caused by redirecting funds to new grantees, but these occurred in a minority of cases.  Given the predictability of the Mexico City Policy/PLGHA being reinstated at regular intervals, such problems could be averted by declining to assign U.S. funds to organizations that have historically refused to comply with the policy in areas where providers are already scarce.

In March, the Government Accountability Office reported that the two largest prime grantees to decline U.S. funding were IPPF and MSI and over half of the subprime grantees to decline were their affiliates.

These findings show that Mexico City/PLGHA is succeeding: it is targeted in its focus on the worst pro-abortion organizations, it is not significantly disrupting the delivery of aid, and it is ensuring that the partners the U.S. chooses are those that will support, or at least comply with, the administration’s commitment to protect life at all stages.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter