Rebecca Oas
(ZENIT News – Center for Family and Human Rights / Washington, 02.23.2025).- When President Donald Trump reinstated the executive order blocking U.S. funding to foreign abortion groups in his first week in office, the outcry from abortion supporters was loud, swift, and predictable. A new report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute debunks these claims and makes the case that the Global Protecting Life Rule is actually good for U.S. taxpayers as well as those receiving U.S. assistance overseas.
The report cites a 2025 survey showing that 73% of Americans “oppose or strongly oppose using U.S. tax dollars to support abortion in other countries.” This includes 55% of Democrats, whose party supports abortion, and overwhelming majorities of Republicans and independent voters.
The policy also respects the cultural values and sovereignty of the countries receiving U.S. aid. The largest organizations whose funding is blocked by the policy – the International Planned Parenthood Federation and MSI Reproductive Choices – not only provide abortion, but lobby foreign governments for more permissive laws and policies on abortion. While they are already blocked from using U.S. funds to directly perform or promote abortion, the fungibility of money means that any U.S. aid they receive enables them to increase their foothold in countries and claim the enhanced credibility of being partners with the United States.
The Lozier report examines the claims from abortion groups that the policy has the unintended consequence of reducing access to health care. However, these claims appear to be exaggerated. Following the reinstatement of the policy, some countries have reported a decline in HIV infections and unintended pregnancies. When services were interrupted, a survey found that the affected involved the provision of information, including on abortion, as well as advocacy efforts and trainings as opposed to medical services. When abortion groups declined U.S. funding and reduced service provision, they were usually replaced by other providers.
While abortion groups claim that increasing access to abortion is necessary to reduce maternal deaths, the Lozier report points out that “Western aid has failed to focus on the causes responsible for 90% of maternal deaths,” which are overwhelmingly preventable or treatable. The argument that abortion and contraception are needed to address maternal mortality relies on the assumption that birth will remain unsafe and therefore must be avoided. As one group of doctors working in Africa point out, “an asphyxiated newborn cannot be resuscitated by the failed intent to prevent his or her conception.”
Another effect of the pro-life policy claimed by abortion groups is a setback to their ability to form coalitions and advocate for liberalized abortion laws. Organizations looking to serve the needs of people in poor countries—and partner with the U.S. government to do it—tend to steer clear of the abortion groups when they are disfavored by U.S. policy.
The Global Protecting Life Rule (previously known as both the Mexico City Policy and Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) remains an executive order that could be rescinded by a future Democratic president. If Congress were to make it a law, it would not only extend the protections to all life overseas, but end the temporary interruptions to services caused by the need to find new implementing partners.
Nevertheless, the Lozier report argues that the pro-life policy remains effective and aligns with the will of the American people, the people they assist overseas, and the global consensus that abortion is not a human right.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
