American Values Act: U.S. Foreign Aid and Peace Corps Funds Permanently Barred from Abortion-Related Activities

The "American Values Act" locks in existing restrictions on how U.S. foreign aid and Peace Corps money can be spent, specifically around abortion and family planning services. This bill makes permanent the rules that have typically been renewed annually.

Funding Restrictions, Defined

This Act amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, putting a permanent ban on using funds for several specific activities. It also amends the Peace Corps Act with similar restrictions:

• No Abortions as Family Planning: Funds can't be used to pay for abortions when they're used as a method of family planning (Section 2).
  • Real-World Example: A clinic in a developing country receiving U.S. aid couldn't use those funds to provide abortions as part of its family planning services.
• Ban on Involuntary Sterilizations: Money can't go toward any program forcing someone into sterilization (Section 2).
  • Real-World Example: If a program pressured individuals into sterilization to meet certain population targets, it would be ineligible for U.S. funding.
• No Related Biomedical Research: Funding is prohibited for biomedical research that relates to abortion or involuntary sterilization as a means of family planning (Section 2). This is important, as it clarifies the type of research in question.
  • Real-World Example: Research specifically investigating abortion as a family planning method would be ineligible, but broader reproductive health research might not be, depending on its focus.
• No Lobbying: U.S. funds can't be used for lobbying either for or against abortion (Section 2).
  • Real-World Example: A U.S.-funded organization couldn't use those funds to advocate for changes in another country's abortion laws, regardless of their stance.
• Peace Corps Restrictions: The bill also explicitly states that Peace Corps funds cannot be used to pay for abortions (Section 2). This aligns the Peace Corps funding with the broader restrictions on foreign assistance.

Strings Attached: Potential Impacts

This bill's main impact is on organizations operating overseas that receive U.S. funding and provide family planning services. The language around "coercive abortion" and "involuntary sterilization" is crucial. If interpreted broadly, it could restrict funding for organizations that offer a wide range of reproductive health services, even if they only have a tangential connection to abortion. This could limit access to various healthcare options in some regions. On the other hand, those who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds may see this bill as ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used for activities they find objectionable.

Challenges and Long-Term Implications

One challenge is the potential for differing interpretations of "coercive abortion" or "involuntary sterilization." This could lead to disputes over which organizations are eligible for funding. The bill's long-term implications depend on how these terms are defined and enforced, potentially affecting the scope of reproductive healthcare services available in countries receiving U.S. aid. The bill’s permanent nature means these restrictions would no longer be subject to annual review and renewal, solidifying this approach to foreign assistance spending.