Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
Search Icon
Search Icon
Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
close-panel

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Get Notifications

Sign up to receive email updates from Charlotte Lozier Institute.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide world-class research in defense of life.

DONATE

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Life & the LawAbortion

Removal of “Sexual and Reproductive Health” Language from UN Resolution: What the Media Got Wrong

Many mainstream media outlets are unfairly criticizing the Trump administration for removing the phrase “Sexual and Reproductive Health” from a United Nations resolution on sexual violence. Such a policy change was necessary to ensure that this resolution did not support legal abortion. Many organizations affiliated with the United Nations including the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organization have used the phrase “Sexual and Reproductive Health” as a way to either directly or indirectly promote legal abortion. In fact, the website for the World Health Organization’s European office includes abortion as a specific area of work underneath “Sexual and Reproductive Health.”

 

Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken the lead to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are neither funding abortion nor weakening pro-life laws in other countries. Their decision to strengthen and expand the Mexico City Policy has significantly reduced taxpayer complicity in global abortion. Furthermore, these Trump administration policy changes have not reduced the overall amount of U.S. funding for global health assistance. Instead, these policy changes have prioritized maternal care, prenatal care, and other programs that ensure adequate nutrition and medical care for mothers and children, rather than abortion.

 

Furthermore, claims by CNN and other news outlets that the Mexico City policy has increased overseas abortion rates are misleading. Abortion data from developing countries is often incomplete and unreliable. Indeed, the studies which claim that the Mexico City Policy increased the incidence of abortion have many missing data points, as I made clear in a piece for National Review. Furthermore, the data they do analyze often reveals implausibly large annual fluctuations in the incidence of abortion. In reality, a substantial body of research illustrates that defunding organizations that perform abortions is an effective strategy for lowering abortion rates. The Trump administration should be applauded for its efforts to help build a culture of life internationally.

Latest Posts

September 4, 2026 A green gradient graph with a yellow line showing an upward trend on a wavy background, with a subtle light source in the top left corner—visually representing the changes in abortions in America post-Dobbs and highlighting the 2026 update. How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs? A September 2026 Update September 1, 2026 Aerial view of a grand capitol building with a central dome, surrounded by trees and city streets, with mountains in the background under a clear sky—the seat of the Idaho Board of Medicine, recently noted in cases such as Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine concerning debates over the federal right to abortion. A New Federal Right to Abortion? Assessing Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine August 7, 2026 A hand in a blue glove holds a box labeled Mifepristone Tablets with a barcode and description stating its use for pregnancy termination and medical abortion, while recent controversies have brought increased attention to both Mifepristone and its uses beyond abortion. Uses for Mifepristone Beyond Abortion: Addressing Recent Controversies

You Might Also Be Interested In

A green gradient graph with a yellow line showing an upward trend on a wavy background, with a subtle light source in the top left corner—visually representing the changes in abortions in America post-Dobbs and highlighting the 2026 update.

How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs? A September 2026 Update

September 4, 2026
Please login to bookmark Close
Aerial view of a grand capitol building with a central dome, surrounded by trees and city streets, with mountains in the background under a clear sky—the seat of the Idaho Board of Medicine, recently noted in cases such as Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine concerning debates over the federal right to abortion.

A New Federal Right to Abortion? Assessing Seyb v. Members of the Idaho Board of Medicine

September 1, 2026
Please login to bookmark Close
A $100 U.S. bill, featuring Benjamin Franklin's portrait, is shown in red and black tones, with all text and details visible—including denomination and serial numbers—hinting at issues like State Funding or Federal Defunding of programs such as Planned Parenthood.

Fact Sheet: State Funding of Planned Parenthood in Response to Federal Defunding

July 2, 2026
Please login to bookmark Close

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide
world-class research in defense of life.

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image