Trump and the Hyde Amendment

Although politics is generally seen as the “art of the possible”, there are some principles which must always be maintained: America’s prohibition on tax-payer funded abortions via the Hyde Amendment is one such principle.

by Tony Perkins for The Christian Post.

Picture this: you’re sitting in a nice restaurant. The people at the next table spare no expense, ordering the most expensive items on the menu. That’s their choice. But when the waiter brings you the bill and says, “You didn’t order any of this — but you’re paying for it anyway,” you’d rightly be outraged.

As offensive as that would be, it pales in comparison to the injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund the killing of the unborn. This is not merely a policy dispute; it is a profound moral wrong. It compounds one injustice upon another — first, the taking of innocent human life, and then compelling citizens to finance an act that violates the moral law of the author of life.

That is precisely why the late Congressman Henry Hyde successfully crafted what became known as the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Hyde, an annual appropriations rider adopted every year since, established the only enduring common ground on abortion policy: Americans should not be forced to fund an act many believe is morally abhorrent — the taking of an unborn child’s life.

Despite decades of pro-abortion propaganda and cultural indoctrination, a clear majority of Americans — 57% — still oppose being compelled to fund abortions. Among Republican voters, that opposition rises to 83%. In today’s fractured political climate, few issues command that level of agreement, even within a single party.

That is what makes President Trump’s call this week for Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” during negotiations over Obamacare subsidies so stunning. Retreating from the party’s long-standing defense of the unborn is not pragmatism; it is the shortest path to becoming a permanent minority.

At issue is the Affordable Care Act itself, which was deceptively designed to evade Hyde’s protections when it was passed in 2010 without Republican support. The COVID-era subsidies, again pushed solely by Democrats during the Biden administration, funneled even more money into an already failing system under the pretext of emergency relief. What is now unmistakably clear is that the so-called Affordable Care Act is, in fact, unaffordable.

Some Republicans have signalled a willingness to support a short-term extension while Congress works to overhaul the system, but only if Hyde Amendment protections are included. Democrats have flatly rejected that condition, insisting that abortion coverage remain mandatory. That position has been, and must remain, a red line for Republicans.

When we consider the moral truth of the sanctity of human life in the womb — and the equally important right of citizens not to be forced to finance its destruction — we are reminded of the words of another president at a moment of national consequence who said: “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.”

Those were among the last public words spoken by Abraham Lincoln, and those words still speak today.


by Tony Perkins. ChristianPost.com is the America’s most comprehensive Christian news website and was launched in March 2004 with the vision of delivering up-to-date news, information, and commentaries relevant to Christians across denominational lines. It presents national and international coverage of current events affecting and involving Christian leaders, church bodies, ministries, mission agencies, schools, businesses, and the general Christian public.

Euros bring abortion to Security Council

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

Left-wing Western governments pledged to make abortion and feminism a central component of global security policy at the UN Security Council on Monday.

A representative of the European Union said the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda is “central” to the EU Gender Action Plan, which includes the promotion of “sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Nordic Countries praised the UN system for promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights in humanitarian programming.

Denmark emphasized that sexual and reproductive health and rights were “non-negotiable.” Ireland called for transgender-specific programming in peace operations through “intersectional” approaches and recognition of women “in all their diversity.”

The U.S. delegation gave its support to the Women, Peace, and Security agenda in broad terms, without addressing its controversial aspects, despite parts of the Trump administration being known to oppose it.

Earlier this year, Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of War, pared down all U.S. Women, Peace and Security programming in the U.S. War Department to a minimum, calling it a “woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops.” When he announced the decision, he said it was a UN program “pushed by feminists and left-wing activists. Politicians fawn over it; troops hate it.”

Hegseth’s concerns seem to be validated by how UN officials define the UN programs. This week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Sima Bahous, the head of UN Women, called for “gender parity” in all UN peace and security processes, including through “binding targets and quotas” and funding for feminist groups worldwide.

The Trump administration is expected to oppose this kind of UN programming backed by the Europeans and Nordics. This would be consistent with how the first Trump administration took a strong position against abortion in UN peace initiatives in 2019.

In Trump 1.0, U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft threatened to veto any Security Council resolution with language on “sexual and reproductive health.” She told the UN Security Council that “The U.N. should not put itself in a position of promoting or suggesting a right to abortion, whether it is humanitarian or development work.”

Susan Yoshihara, president of the American Council on Women Peace and Security (ACWPS), told the Friday Fax, “We can only hope that the second Trump administration will take a firm stand as it did in its first administration. We must not let the WPS agenda get hijacked by special interests.”

Yoshihara edited a recently published book on Women, Peace, and Security to outline how the U.S. should uphold a positive vision for women in security policy while opposing ideological capture by feminists.

Yoshihara said, “The WPS agenda has always been a tug of war between contending worldviews. One is the national security approach wanting to bring peace and stability to their countries by including everyone, including women and girls. The other is informed by an ideology of sweeping gender equality broadly defined. Only if we return to a laser focus on peace and security will WPS succeed and be a uniting force, and not a divisive one.”

This tug of war is expected to continue in the coming months and years as opposition to gender ideology grows within the UN. During the debate this week, the Russian Ambassador to the UN complained of the direction Western countries were giving the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He said it had become a political vehicle for the “imposition of neo-liberal notions” and that it was “no longer about sex but gender.”

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.