Abortion Not a Solution to War Rape

By Wendy Wright | November 25, 2015

One of the heart-wrenching acts of war and terrorism is rape. Women and teens captured by Boko Haram and ISIS, or violated by enemy soldiers, can consequently find themselves pregnant.

This issue recently came up in the U.S. presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton said she would skirt federal law against funding overseas abortions in these hard cases through a laundering scheme of giving tax dollars to international groups or other countries to then spend on abortions.

In other words, her solution is to end the lives of victims.

Whether cloaked as a right, or as population control, abortion is presented as a simple solution to throw money at and walk away. And proponents never seem to address the children already born.

Just like solutions for ending war do not come in one simple silver bullet, truly helping women and children born from sexual violence requires more than ending the lives of the victims.

As LifeNews reports:

Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney who was conceived in rape, told LifeNews that forcing Americans to pay for abortions would just victimize women in conflict areas a second time.

“Rape victim mothers need real help, not abortion,” Kiessling said. “Justice is served by punishing the perpetrator, not the innocent child.  Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Mukwege of Panzi Hospital in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo has the right solution — providing care for rape victims, counseling, job training, and even child care for their children conceived in rape.”

The international pro-life group C-FAM agrees and it has said previously “international humanitarian law does not establish a right to abortion in cases of rape in conflict situations.” The group points out that abortions in unsanitary conflict situations would place the mother to increased health risks, and that abortion funding will divert greatly needed funds from other more pressing areas including basic medical care.

The group points out that giving a rape exception to the ban on abortion funding will further stigmatize and therefore harm children born of rape who are already vulnerable

Abortion groups can already get funding for international abortions from European governments.

Who benefits from the U.S. funding overseas abortions?

Oddly enough, advocates lobbying to reinterpret the Helms amendment, the federal law passed in 1973 barring U.S. foreign aid for abortions, are seeking not just a new revenue stream for their bloated budgets.

What they crave is the moral legitimacy that comes from U.S. support. As a former executive director of the UN Population Fund once said, “United States leadership is critical in this field not just for money, but for ethical and moral reasons as well.”

Americans should be pleased at that compliment – and not take that responsibility lightly.

Abortion advocates recognize that abortion is stigmatized – for good reason. It violates human rights, is medically dangerous, especially in regions without basic health care and sanitation, and not accepted in many cultures. They hope to overcome stigma worldwide – including in the countries where they seek to do abortions – by getting the U.S. stamp of approval that implicitly comes through funding.

But abortion is neither good medicine or foreign policy.

Wars continue by stoking hatred toward others. Likewise, abortion rejects an innocent person through the ultimate act of killing.

Peace, on the other hand, requires virtue. Compassion, forgiveness, and reaching beyond yourself to help another.

An effective foreign policy and humanitarian work, which are also pro-woman, would promote virtue. It is much harder than simply eliminating innocent people.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter