What Effect Will Dobbs Have on the International Abortion Debate?

By | June 23, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. June 24 (C-Fam) It’s not just Americans on needles and pins about the impending Supreme Court decision that may overturn the federal abortion regime established with the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973. Foreigners are watching and waiting, too.

Even before arguments were heard in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last December, international abortion advocates weighed in, including a group of mandate holders with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  They submitted an amicus brief urging the Court not to overturn Roe v. Wade and maintain America’s status quo abortion law, which is among the most extreme in the world.

What would be the impact outside the U.S. if Roe fell?  According to international abortion activists, it would embolden pro-life voices around the world and increase pressure on other governments to further restrict abortion or refrain from liberalizing their existing laws.

Overseas abortion groups frequently mention “ripple effects” of the forthcoming Dobbs decision and warn that it could “undermine liberalization campaigns” in regions like Africa where fierce debates on abortion are ongoing in many national legislatures.

Abortion advocates frequently argue that abortion is an international human right, despite the fact that this has never been agreed in any global negotiation, much less a binding document.  For a national government—especially one as influential as the U.S.—to amend its laws to allow further restrictions illustrates the falseness of this claim.

The reversal of Roe would also undercut the narrative favored that the liberalization of abortion laws, most recently in Ireland, Argentina, and Mexico, represents an inexorable wave of “progress” that cannot be stopped or turned back.

For people outside the U.S., the overturning of Roe would have little practical effect apart from the message it sends that abortion is not a right and that pro-life political victories are within reach.  The decision will not affect U.S. foreign aid policy, including the longstanding Helms Amendment, passed in the same year as the Roe decision, which bars direct funding for overseas abortions.

It would also have no effect on the executive policy enacted by Republican presidents that restricts funding for overseas organizations that promote or provide abortion, known as the Mexico City Policy.  Most recently, this policy was reinstated and expanded under President Donald Trump, then rescinded in the early days of the Biden presidency.

In the wake of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, international abortion advocates rushed to meet with members of Congress and leaders of U.S. agencies involved in foreign policy.  One of their major priorities was the removal of the Helms Amendment and the permanent revocation of the Mexico City Policy.  Specifically, they urged members of Congress to pass the “Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act,” which would repeal Helms and the “Global Health, Empowerment and Rights (Global HER) Act,” which would prevent the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy.  Neither bill currently has a clear path to being made law.

Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to carry the pro-life momentum into U.S. foreign aid by codifying the Mexico City Policy in law, permanently blocking funding to foreign pro-abortion groups.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter