Federal Funds to Fight Sex Trafficking Could Go to Big Abortion Businesses, Say Activists
Pro-life advocates are warning that Senate Republicans have included a provision in the critically important National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that could enable millions of dollars designated to fight sex trafficking to be used to promote or fund abortion.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., introduced legislation last year called the End Modern Slavery Initiative Act (EMSI), which essentially would create a congressionally chartered non-profit, public-private entity that would receive funding from the United States government, foreign governments and businesses to give to organizations to help end human trafficking around the world.
Although such an intergovernmental private-public partnership might seem like a no-brainer, pro-life organizations are opposing the legislation because it does not include basic pro-life protections to guarantee that money will not be used to fund or promote abortion.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
"All money that is appropriated by Congress is subject to long-standing prohibitions on those funds being used for abortion," said Micah Johnson, communications director for Corker, to The Christian Post.
"Most significantly, the Helms Amendment applies to foreign assistance funds and states that 'no funds … may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.' All of the funds authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act flow through the appropriations process, which are fully covered by the Helms restriction," he explained.
According to the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Corker successfully lobbied Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., to add language from the EMSI legislation to the must-pass NDAA that would create the aforementioned entity and provide $37.5 million per year in U.S. taxpayer dollars without pro-life protections.
A March for Life press release explains that the lack of pro-life protections could mean that recipients of the funds would likely be big abortion corporations instead of "groups holistically dedicated to fighting the scourge of trafficking."
Tom McClusky, March for Life's vice president of government affairs, told The Christian Post on Thursday that the lack of pro-life protections in the provision could allow abortion organizations like Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Federation to receive these funds.
"When there are issues of trafficking, issues of pregnancy will come up," March for Life President Jeanne Mancini told CP. "There would be a conflict of interest, of course, with organizations that provide abortions and make money off abortion and there could be some pressure and coercion. Certainly, our government funds could actually go to either promote or pay for abortion."
Although the provision does not include pro-life protections, there are statutes in place that prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to fund or promote abortions.
The Helms Amendment, enacted in 1973, states that "No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."
Additionally, the Siljander Amendment states that no taxpayer funds "may be used to lobby for or against abortion."
