Staff Reports
The battle surrounding the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) funding freeze, as orchestrated by the Trump administration, is much like watching a toddler holding onto a piñata: lots of swinging, plenty of splinters and no actual candy in sight. This controversy has opened the door to some fascinating cuts, chief among them the potential loss of funds for Planned Parenthood—an organization that could be viewed as the proverbial piñata in the political game of whack-a-mole.
Naturally, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is stepping up to the plate with their usual alarms and sirens, screeching about how this pause represents a catastrophic “war on development.” They want the world to believe that without the lavish support of USAID, critical healthcare for millions would vanish overnight, as if the only thing standing between global health and total anarchy is Planned Parenthood’s generous helpings of taxpayer dollars. They cite dire consequences for sexual and reproductive health services, claiming lives are on the line. How noble, yet entirely predictable.
On the bright side, it seems the Trump administration’s executive order to suspend foreign aid has sparked an internal re-evaluation of priorities. After all, who thought that AIDS relief funding would somehow morph into a slush fund for abortion services? IPPF anticipates losing $61 million—a sum they are unwilling to part with due to their refusal to sign onto the Global Gag Rule. So, instead of focusing solely on treating global health crises, they are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their funding for what many Americans see as elective procedures.
Here's How USAID Pause Affects Abortion Giant Planned Parenthood
https://t.co/Iq8HjQ7Iyu— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 12, 2025
Unsurprisingly, alarm bells have been ringing in the liberal camp, as United Nations agencies begin pulling back their operations as well, all because of a 90-day foreign aid suspension. Left-leaning organizations are quick to point out that without USAID funds, thousands of health workers will be canned. It seems the humanitarian crisis they predict stems more from a lack of access to abortion services than a true crisis of health. The IPPF also seems convinced that without American dollars, pregnant women across Africa are destined to suffer. Surely, they must admit that the absence of abortion might make it a cleaner, safer world—but that doesn’t fit their narrative.
The IPPF statement overflows with virtuous indignation, claiming that this situation is akin to a dystopian nightmare where lives will literally be lost due to the “hateful regressive policies” of the Trump administration. As if they expect to walk into a room and find the world has fallen into chaos, they paint a picture of death, destruction, and despair. Interestingly, they conveniently gloss over the reality that American taxpayer aid—with strings attached to prevent its misuse—is still considered a necessary evil for many countries. Perhaps it’s time to rethink what qualifies as “life-saving” activities.
The links between Planned Parenthood and the funding machinations of USAID are muddy at best. Reports suggest former USAID employees flock to organizations that align more closely with the Democratic Party—leading one to wonder whether these two entities are simply operating as two sides of the same coin. Examining the numbers reveals the extent of the funding gravy train that has long benefited organizations like the IPPF, making the notion of losing millions in funding a little less tragic. While the push continues to frame abortion as a development issue, how about focusing those dollars solely on disease prevention or providing clean water?
The Trump administration is merely attempting to fulfill campaign promises of defunding organizations that prioritize abortion over actual healthcare. As shocking as it is to liberals, there’s something incredibly refreshing about acknowledging that federal funds should be utilized effectively—especially when the mission is about preserving lives, not terminating them. If the Democrats want to play hardball over donor dollars, perhaps they should focus on legitimate health interventions that don’t involve promoting elective abortions abroad.
