Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, barring US taxpayer dollars from funding international organizations that perform or actively promote abortions.

Since that time, several European officials have sought to counter the United States’ withdrawal from funding of international abortion by pledging and raising funds. Shortly after the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, Lilianne Ploumen, the Netherlands’ Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, suggested the creation of an international abortion fund, and proceeded to launch ‘She Decides,’ an international fundraising initiative to fill the void in abortion funding left by the US.

Since that time, at least seven other countries, most of them in Europe, have reportedly joined in efforts to replace US funding. While a case could certainly be made that for these countries to pour money into organizations that push abortion on other countries is unethical for multiple reasons, it seems that some of these pro-abortion officials are making that unnecessary, as the arguments they are using both to push funding and to condemn the US for its withdrawal are surprisingly weak.

Let’s begin with Ploumen. In context of condemning the Mexico City Policy and encouraging others to help counter it, Ploumen argued, “Banning abortion does not reduce the number of abortions.”

First, the Mexico City Policy does not ban abortions. It just says we won’t pay for them in other countries. Ploumen likely knows this, but apparently couldn’t resist inserting her personal opinion here, which is typical of Western politicians seeking to push pro-abortion values on other countries. Banning abortions does have strong statistical ties to reduction of abortion rates, regardless of how repeatedly and loudly pro-abortion politicians claim otherwise.

Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister, Isabella Lövin, joined Ploumen in arguing against the US. “If you know that this is a very bad road to go down if you want to save women’s lives, if you want women and families to have power over their own lives and that girls should be able to go to school and not get pregnant too early, then it is important that we stand up for the right to planned, safe, and legal abortions,” she said.

Like most pro-abortion arguments, that statement is weak, to say the least, on several levels. First, how can Lövin talk about empowering women and girls, and in the very same sentence imply that without abortion, girls can’t make it through school or avoid pregnancy? I’m confused. Without abortion women are helpless? I don’t know about you, but I have a much higher view of women than that.

In addition, how does pushing abortion help women to “not get pregnant too early”? The only logical explanation is that Lövin was referring to contraception – but if so, contraception and abortion are two very different issues, and to group them together without clarification is misleading at best. Beyond that, even if what she’s saying about abortion is true – which it’s not – she hasn’t even begun to make a case for why the US or any other country should be obligated to pay for abortion in other countries. Perhaps she believes that governments are international charities — but a little logic would go a long way in making such a case.

And we haven’t even gotten into the more predictable (and equally ineffective) arguments being used here, like “women and girls are in charge of their own bodies.” It’s sad that we still have to explain basic biology to pro-abortion politicians. We agree that women and girls should be in charge of their own bodies, but there are other human individuals to consider here too, and none of them deserve to be killed.

As usual, the arguments being used to push the pro-abortion agenda here are empty, vague, irrelevant on several points, and actually make the Mexico City Policy look more reasonable.

Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, barring US taxpayer dollars from funding international organizations that perform or actively promote abortions.

Since that time, several European officials have sought to counter the United States’ withdrawal from funding of international abortion by pledging and raising funds. Shortly after the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, Lilianne Ploumen, the Netherlands’ Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, suggested the creation of an international abortion fund, and proceeded to launch ‘She Decides,’ an international fundraising initiative to fill the void in abortion funding left by the US.

Since that time, at least seven other countries, most of them in Europe, have reportedly joined in efforts to replace US funding. While a case could certainly be made that for these countries to pour money into organizations that push abortion on other countries is unethical for multiple reasons, it seems that some of these pro-abortion officials are making that unnecessary, as the arguments they are using both to push funding and to condemn the US for its withdrawal are surprisingly weak.

Let’s begin with Ploumen. In context of condemning the Mexico City Policy and encouraging others to help counter it, Ploumen argued, “Banning abortion does not reduce the number of abortions.”

First, the Mexico City Policy does not ban abortions. It just says we won’t pay for them in other countries. Ploumen likely knows this, but apparently couldn’t resist inserting her personal opinion here, which is typical of Western politicians seeking to push pro-abortion values on other countries. Banning abortions does have strong statistical ties to reduction of abortion rates, regardless of how repeatedly and loudly pro-abortion politicians claim otherwise.

Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister, Isabella Lövin, joined Ploumen in arguing against the US. “If you know that this is a very bad road to go down if you want to save women’s lives, if you want women and families to have power over their own lives and that girls should be able to go to school and not get pregnant too early, then it is important that we stand up for the right to planned, safe, and legal abortions,” she said.

Like most pro-abortion arguments, that statement is weak, to say the least, on several levels. First, how can Lövin talk about empowering women and girls, and in the very same sentence imply that without abortion, girls can’t make it through school or avoid pregnancy? I’m confused. Without abortion women are helpless? I don’t know about you, but I have a much higher view of women than that.

In addition, how does pushing abortion help women to “not get pregnant too early”? The only logical explanation is that Lövin was referring to contraception – but if so, contraception and abortion are two very different issues, and to group them together without clarification is misleading at best. Beyond that, even if what she’s saying about abortion is true – which it’s not – she hasn’t even begun to make a case for why the US or any other country should be obligated to pay for abortion in other countries. Perhaps she believes that governments are international charities — but a little logic would go a long way in making such a case.

And we haven’t even gotten into the more predictable (and equally ineffective) arguments being used here, like “women and girls are in charge of their own bodies.” It’s sad that we still have to explain basic biology to pro-abortion politicians. We agree that women and girls should be in charge of their own bodies, but there are other human individuals to consider here too, and none of them deserve to be killed.

As usual, the arguments being used to push the pro-abortion agenda here are empty, vague, irrelevant on several points, and actually make the Mexico City Policy look more reasonable.