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.

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

May 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: West Virginia (2023) May 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: Indiana (2023) May 23, 2024 United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions

You Might Also Be Interested In

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions

May 23, 2024
ClosePlease login

Misleading Statements About “Life of the Mother” Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction

Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to International Norms (April 2024)

Become A Defender of Life

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

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image