Inauguration Day and the weeks that follow should be a time for the new president to unite the country and build an agenda that crosses party lines. Unfortunately, it seems Joe Biden plans to take the opposite approach, having promised to immediately rescind the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, better known as the Mexico City policy.

As millions of Americans are hurting because of the coronavirus, Biden appears hell-bent on canceling an extraordinarily effective and life-giving policy. President Ronald Reagan originally enacted the Mexico City policy to ensure unwilling American taxpayers didn’t fund overseas abortions. Every Republican president since Reagan has promoted the policy, and President Donald Trump expanded it, applying it not only to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department but to other agencies distributing foreign health assistance, like the Department of Defense. This significant change means that billions of taxpayer dollars are protected from paying to promote and subsidize abortion internationally every year.

Unfortunately, Biden can eliminate this pro-life policy with a stroke of a pen. During the Democratic primary, his campaign promised, “Biden will use executive action on his first day in office to withdraw the Mexico City global gag rule.” Vice President Kamala Harris wants to go even further and pass legislation permanently repealing the Mexico City policy. This level of commitment to funding abortion everywhere is, frankly, ghoulish and should concern Americans regardless of political affiliation.

Even abortion supporters don’t think the government should be promoting and funding the practice abroad with the tax dollars of pro-life Americans. A bipartisan majority of Americans reject Biden and Harris’s radical approach to the exportation of abortion, as 75 percent oppose funding overseas abortions with taxpayer funds, including 61 percent who identify as pro-choice.

Despite the need to focus our dwindling resources on families here in our pandemic-battered economy, Biden wants to endanger unborn babies in countries that should self-determine their values.

It is a cruel act of political expedience to dangle abortion over the head of a needy world. Abortion isn’t health care. At-risk communities across the globe stand to benefit from the safety net and companionship that comes from having and raising children. Heaven forbid the United States endorse and fund a program that destroys lives and weakens communities, which is exactly what reversing the Mexico City policy will do.

Biden justifies repealing this popular and life-giving policy by claiming it hurts global public health, even though all the evidence shows the opposite.

A State Department review of the Trump policy shows that only eight of 1,340 primary grant awardees declined health care funds because of the abortion prohibition—proof the policy doesn’t curb critical health assistance in remote parts of the world. “In most cases in which a recipient or sub-recipient declined to agree to the terms of [the Mexico City policy], USAID and/or the prime partner successfully transitioned activities to ensure the continuity of global health assistance,” reads the report.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement the report is evidence the policy doesn’t inhibit the United States’ ability to provide much-needed health care and testing to those in third-world countries. “This review reaffirms that the United States can continue to meet its critical global health goals while protecting life abroad through its global health assistance programs,” he said. “The U.S. government is committed to protecting life, the unborn, and the dignity of the human person.”

A misguided Biden administration would foist a harmful package deal on other countries at the expense, and against the wishes, of American taxpayers. But the return and expansion of the Mexico City policy under the Trump administration was proof positive that it’s possible to defend the unborn and their mothers while also advancing health and well-being around the world.

---

(Originally published in Newsweek)

(Originally published in The Daily Signal)

Although they were considered radical at the time, American suffragists were unrelenting in their efforts to transform our country’s politics and empower women with the right to vote.

The year 2020 marks the centennial of their victory in that battle, and while it is an occasion to celebrate, it is also a reminder that we must continue the work of these early feminists.

In addition to voting rights, suffragists championed abolition, equality in education, equal pay for equal work, and the right to life for the unborn.

Unlike many radical feminists of the second half of the 20th century and into 21st century, these women realized that abortion does not empower women. In honor of these suffragists, the theme for the 47th annual March for Life is “Life Empowers: Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman.”

American suffragists looked to the examples of their predecessors and were especially inspired by the English philosopher, author, and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.

Born in Spitalfields, London, in 1759, Wollstonecraft began advocating equality for women long before the height of the women’s suffrage movement in the United States.

Though she is perhaps best known as the mother of Mary Shelley, who wrote the classic novel “Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus,” Wollstonecraft was a prominent author in her own right. Her most famous work, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” was published in 1792 and circulated several decades later by American suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in their newspaper, Revolution.

Wollstonecraft advocated education reform as a means of empowering women and argued that the education system had been designed to oppress women, undermining their formation in a way that prevented them not only from flourishing as wives and mothers, but also blocking them from entering professional fields.

She believed that empowered women would embrace motherhood and described women who fulfilled their responsibilities as “independent.” According to Wollstonecraft, women’s first duty “is to themselves as rational creatures” and secondly “as citizens, is that, which includes so many, of a mother.”

Wollstonecraft viewed abortion as a depraved consequence of society’s failure to recognize the intrinsic value of women, as well as of the prevailing attitude that women should be objectified and subjugated by men.

She described women and children as victims of this failure to value women and motherhood:

Women becoming, consequently, weaker, in mind and body … have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born.

Wollstonecraft promoted pro-life ideals in her writing, but she also embodied the sacrifices she wrote about in her own life as a single mother, having her first child, Fanny Imlay, out of wedlock despite the harsh judgment of society.

Drawing on her experience as a mother, she argued that better education for women would allow future generations to flourish. She wrote that raising future generations of children “has justly been insisted on as the peculiar destination of woman” and therefore that “the ignorance that incapacitates them must be contrary to the order of things.”

Like Wollstonecraft, today’s pro-life feminists work to transform our culture into one that is both pro-child and pro-woman, recognizing that abortion violates motherhood and undermines women’s empowerment.

Since 1973, abortion has eliminated more 60 million children and harmed millions of mothers in the process. Giving women the right to vote was once considered radical, but today we often take it for granted.

We hope someday to see a world in which embracing the dignity of every human life, both women and their unborn children, is no longer considered a radical idea.

Jeanne Mancini is the President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund and Alexandra DeSanctis is a staff writer for National Review.