Abortion and Family Planning-Related
Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance
Law and Policy
Updated August 21, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R41360

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Summary
This report details legislation and policies that restrict or place requirements on U.S. funding of
abortion or family planning activities abroad. The level and extent of federal funding for these
activities is an ongoing and controversial issue in U.S. foreign assistance and has continued to be
a point of contention during the 116th Congress and beyond.
These issues have been debated for over four decades in the context of a broader domestic
abortion controversy that began with the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which
holds that the Constitution protects a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. Since Roe,
Congress has enacted foreign assistance legislation placing restrictions or requirements on the
federal funding of abortions and on family planning activities abroad. Many of these provisions,
often referred to by the name of the lawmakers that introduced them, have been included in
foreign aid authorizations, appropriations, or both, and affect different types of foreign assistance.
Examples include:
 the “Helms amendment,” which prohibits the use of U.S. funds to perform
abortions or to coerce individuals to practice abortions;
 the “Biden amendment,” which states that U.S. funds may not be used for
biomedical research related to abortion or involuntary sterilization;
 the “Siljander amendment,” which prohibits U.S. funds from being used to
lobby for or against abortion;
 the “Kemp-Kasten amendment,” which prohibits funding for any organization
or program that, as determined by the President, supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization (the
Trump Administration has withheld funding from UNFPA under this law); and
 the “Tiahrt amendment,” which places requirements on voluntary family
planning projects receiving assistance from USAID.
The executive branch has also engaged in the debate over international abortion and family
planning. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan issued what has become known as the “Mexico City
policy,” which required foreign nongovernmental organizations receiving USAID family
planning assistance to certify that they would not perform or actively promote abortion as a
method of family planning, even if such activities were conducted with non-U.S. funds. The
policy was rescinded by President Bill Clinton and reinstituted and expanded by President George
W. Bush to include State Department activities. In January 2009, President Barack Obama
rescinded the policy. It was reinstated and expanded by President Trump in January 2017, and
renamed “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” (PLGHA).
This report focuses primarily on legislative restrictions and executive branch policies related to
international abortion and family planning. For more information, see
 CRS Report RL33467, Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response, by
Jon O. Shimabukuro;
 CRS Report R46215, U.S. Bilateral International Family Planning and
Reproductive Health Programs: Background and Selected Issues, by Sara M.
Tharakan; and
 CRS In Focus IF11013, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, by
Tiaji Salaam-Blyther and Sara M. Tharakan.
This report is updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Introduction
One of the most controversial issues in U.S. foreign assistance concerns restrictions on U.S.
funding for abortion and family planning activities abroad. For many, the debate focuses on three
key questions:
 Do countries or organizations that receive U.S. assistance perform abortions or
engage in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization activities with U.S.
funds?
 Should U.S. funding be permitted or withheld from countries or organizations
that participate in these activities?
 What impact, if any, might the withholding of U.S. funds have on population
growth, family planning, and reproductive health services in developing
countries?
Members of Congress have engaged in heated debates regarding these issues in connection with a
broader domestic controversy regarding U.S. abortion policy. These debates have continued since
the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which holds that the Constitution
protects a woman’s decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.1 In nearly every Congress since
Roe, Members who oppose abortion have introduced legislation that would prohibit the practice
in the United States. Many congressional opponents have also sought to attach provisions to
annual appropriations measures banning the use of federal funds to perform abortions.
Before the Roe decision, the majority of discussions in Congress regarding the federal funding of
abortion focused on domestic authorization and appropriations legislation, particularly labor and
health and human services appropriations. After Roe, however, the controversy spread to U.S.
foreign assistance, leading to the enactment of abortion and voluntary family planning restrictions
in foreign assistance authorizations and appropriations.
Debate over international abortion restrictions has also reached the executive branch. In 1984,
President Reagan issued what has become known as the “Mexico City policy,” which required
foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) family planning assistance to certify that they would not perform or
actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if such activities were undertaken
with non-U.S. funds. In the intervening years, the Mexico City policy has been rescinded and
reissued by various Administrations. Most recently, it was rescinded by President Barack Obama
in January 2009 and reinstated and expanded by President Donald Trump in January 2017.
During the 116th Congress, Members have continued to debate prohibitions and restrictions on
abortion and family planning activities abroad. As in prior appropriations cycles, some Members
sought to renew, add, modify, or remove language addressing these issues in authorization or
appropriations legislation. In addition, some introduced legislation aiming to make the Mexico
City policy (also referred to as “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,” or PLGHA), or its
reversal, permanent law. Federal funding for abortion and family planning activities remains a
controversial issue in foreign assistance, and congressional interest in the subject is likely to
continue into the next session.
This report examines key legislative and executive branch policies that restrict or place
requirements on U.S. funding of abortion or voluntary family planning activities abroad. It

1 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Congressional Research Service

1

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

discusses when and how the policies were introduced and the types of foreign aid to which they
apply.
Setting the Context: Legislative Vehicles
Many of the restrictions attached to U.S. funding of abortion and requirements relating to
voluntary family planning programs abroad are included in foreign aid authorizations,
appropriations, or both, and affect different types of foreign assistance. Some provisions have
come to be known by the name of the lawmakers who introduced them (for example, the “Helms
amendment”), while others are identified by the subjects they address (for example, “involuntary
sterilization”).
Legislation that authorizes foreign aid establishes, continues, or modifies an agency or program
for a fixed or indefinite period of time. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended,
is the cornerstone of permanent foreign aid authorization law.2 The FAA is divided into several
“parts” that authorize different types of foreign assistance, including development assistance (part
I); military and security assistance (part II); general, administrative, and miscellaneous provisions
(part III); the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (part IV); and debt reduction for developing
countries with tropical forests (part V). Congress has routinely amended the FAA since 1961 and
has authorized new programs in stand-alone acts, but it has not comprehensively reauthorized
most programs in the FAA since 1985. Subsequent authorization bills have often stalled in the
face of debates and disagreements on controversial issues (including abortion and family
planning), a tight legislative calendar, or foreign policy disputes between Congress and the
executive branch.
In the absence of the regular enactment of foreign aid authorizations, Congress has annually
considered appropriations measures that set spending levels for nearly every foreign assistance
account. In recent years, these measures have become increasingly significant for Congress in
influencing how U.S. foreign aid is disbursed. Many of them have included family planning or
abortion-related restrictions or requirements.3
The links among the various requirements and restrictions, as well as their inclusion in different
legislation, are complex and in some cases not immediately apparent. For example, some
amendments that were already enacted in the FAA, such as the Helms and Biden provisions,
appear to be added to other foreign assistance-related legislation for emphasis.4 In other cases, the
provisions may have been included so that they apply to additional categories of foreign aid not
covered under the FAA. Moreover, some restrictions and requirements stand on their own, while
others seek to clarify and amend other existing restrictions. The Leahy amendment, for instance,

2 P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.
3 International family planning and abortion-related provisions can also be enacted as part of supplemental
appropriations. For more information on foreign aid, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S.
Programs and Policy, by Marian L. Lawson and Emily M. Morgenstern, and CRS Report R40089, Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961: Authorizations and Corresponding Appropriations, by Dianne E. Rennack and Susan G. Chesser.
4 The Senate’s FY2012 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee Report alludes to this possibility: “The
Committee does not continue to carry a general provision specifically regarding funding for abortions and involuntary
sterilization (Section 7018 of P.L. 111-117), as all but the last sentence of that provision was restatement of permanent
law (Section 104(f) of the FAA).” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2012, report to accompany S. 1601, 112th Cong., 1st sess.,
September 22, 2011, S.Rept. 112-85 (Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 32. Similar language was included in the Senate’s
FY2011 Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee Report (S.Rept. 111-237, p. 36).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 11 Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

defines the term “motivate” as written in the Helms amendment, while the Livingston amendment
seeks to clarify prohibitions in the DeConcini amendment.
Restrictions or Requirements in Legislation
This section details enacted legislative restrictions relating to U.S. funding of abortion and
requirements related to voluntary family planning programs abroad. They are listed in
chronological order by the year they were enacted.
Helms Amendment (1973)
The Helms amendment prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds to perform abortions or
to motivate or coerce individuals to practice abortions. Introduced by Senator Jesse Helms in
1973, it was adopted as an amendment to the FAA because of concerns that federal funds could
be used to perform abortions overseas. Under the FAA heading “Prohibition on Use of Funds for
Abortions and Involuntary Sterilizations,” the Helms amendment states the following:
(1) None of the funds made available to carry this part may be used to pay for the
performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any
person to practice abortions.5
The amendment as written in the FAA applies to all foreign assistance activities authorized by
part I of that act (development assistance).
Since FY1980, the Helms amendment has also periodically been enacted in foreign operations
appropriations measures.6 It is included in two places in the Further Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2020, (hereinafter referred to as the “FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act”).7 In Section 7018 of Title VII, General Provisions, the language applies to all foreign
assistance activities in the act that are authorized under part I of the FAA (development
assistance).8 In Title III, Bilateral Economic Assistance, the language applies to foreign assistance
activities in the entire act.9
Involuntary Sterilization (1978)
In 1978, Congress passed an amendment to the FAA specifying that U.S. foreign assistance may
not fund (1) the performance of involuntary sterilizations, or (2) the coercion of involuntary
sterilizations (or provide financial incentives to undergo sterilization):

5 Section 104(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), as amended by the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-189), approved December 17, 1973. “This part” refers to part I of the FAA.
For clarification of the term “motivate” in the Helms amendment, see the “Leahy Amendment (1994)” section.
6 For instance, it was not included in foreign operations appropriations bills from FY1981 through FY1985. It was
included in FY1986 through FY2020 appropriations.
7 Division G - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2020, of the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), December 20, 2019.
8 Ibid, 133 Stat. 2855.
9 Ibid, 133 Stat. 2827.
Congressional Research Service

3

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

None of the funds made available to carry out this part may be used to pay for the
performance of involuntary sterilizations as a method of family planning or to coerce or
provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilizations.10
The provision is also repeated in annual foreign operations appropriations. Most recently, it was
included in Section 7018 of the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.11 In both
the FAA and State-Foreign Operations appropriations acts, it applies to all foreign assistance
activities authorized by part I of the FAA (development assistance).
Peace Corps (1978)
Since FY1979, annual foreign operations appropriations have included an abortion restriction on
Peace Corps funding due to concerns that money appropriated to the organization was being used
to finance abortions for volunteers.12 The restriction, included under the heading “Peace Corps,”
states that “none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to pay for
abortions.”13 As in some previous fiscal years, the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act includes an additional provision that allows exceptions to the prohibition on
funding abortions in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment to the life of the mother.14
No restrictions exist on funding for the medical evacuation of Peace Corps volunteers who decide
to have an abortion. Under existing policy, the Peace Corps covers the cost of evacuation to a
location where “medically adequate facilities” for obtaining an abortion are available and where
abortions are legally permissible.15
Biden Amendment (1981)
In 1981, Congress passed an amendment to the FAA specifying that the United States may not
provide foreign assistance for biomedical research related to abortion or involuntary sterilization.
This provision, named after Senator Joseph Biden, states the following:
None of the funds made available to carry out this part may be used to pay for any
biomedical research which relates, in whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance
of, abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family planning.16

10 Section 104(f)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(2)), as amended by
Section 104 of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-424; 92 Stat. 946), approved
October 6, 1978. “This part” refers to part I of the FAA.
11 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2855.
12 The provision first appeared under Title III of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1979 (P.L. 95-481; 92 Stat. 1597), approved October 18, 1978. For information the circumstances of the amendment’s
introduction, see, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, September 22, 1978, Vol. 124, Part 23, pp.
S15802-S15804.
13 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2832.
14 The provision states the following: “Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso, section 614 of
division E of Public Law 113–76 shall apply to funds appropriated under this heading” (113 Stat. 284). Section 614 of
P.L. 113-76 states, “The provision of section 613 shall not apply where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the fetus were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.” (§613 of P.L. 113-76 says, “No
funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative expenses in connection
with any health plan under the Federal employees health benefits program which provides any benefits or coverage for
abortions.”) For a more detailed discussion of Peace Corps volunteers and abortion, see CRS Report RS21168, The
Peace Corps: Overview and Issues, by Nick M. Brown.
15 MS 263 Volunteer Pregnancy, Peace Corps Office of Medical Services (OMS).
16 Section 104(f)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(3)), as amended by
Congressional Research Service

4

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

The Biden amendment has also been included in foreign operations appropriations acts. Most
recently, it was included in Section 7018 of the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act.17 The provision as included in the FAA and the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act applies to all foreign assistance activities authorized by part I of the FAA
(development assistance).
Siljander Amendment (1981)
In 1981, Representative Mark Siljander introduced an amendment to the FY1982 Foreign
Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act specifying that no U.S. funds may be used
to lobby for abortion.18 Since the Siljander amendment was first introduced, Congress has
modified the amendment to state that no funds may be used to “lobby for or against abortion”
(emphasis added).
The Siljander amendment has been included in annual foreign operations appropriations acts.19 It
applies to all programs and activities appropriated under such acts. Most recently, the FY2020
State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act states that “none of the funds made available under
this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.”20
DeConcini Amendment (1985)
In 1985, Congress enacted a provision to the FY1986 Foreign Assistance and Related Programs
Appropriations Act specifying that the United States would only fund family planning projects
that offer a range of family planning methods and services, either directly or through referral.21
The measure was enacted to counter a Reagan Administration policy that would provide U.S.
funding to overseas groups that advocate only “natural” family planning methods and services,
such as abstinence.22 The amendment, introduced by Senator Dennis DeConcini, states the
following:
That in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available
only to family planning projects which offer, either directly or through referral to, or
information about access to, a broad range of family planning methods and services ... 23

Section 302(b) of the International Security and Development Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-113; 95 Stat. 1532), approved
December 29, 1981. “This part” refers to part I of the FAA.
17 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2855.
18 Section 525 of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1982 (P.L. 97-121; 95 Stat. 1657),
approved December 29, 1981. Representative Siljander’s proposed amendment, H.Amdt. 470 to H.R. 4559 [97th], the
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1982, also stated that no U.S. funds would be used to
“recommend abortion or to train any individual to perform abortion.” This additional language was eliminated in the
final bill.
19 The amendment did not appear in foreign operations appropriations acts for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
20 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2827.
21 Section 541 of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1986 (Section 101(i) of H.J.Res.
465; P.L. 99-190; 99 Stat. 1295), approved December 19, 1985.
22 John Felton, “Budget Cuts Leave Mark on Foreign Arms Aid,” Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Weekly, December 21,
1985. Then-USAID Administrator M. Peter McPherson reportedly agreed to provide $40 million over five years to
organizations that provide advice such natural methods.
23 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2827.
Congressional Research Service

5

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

The provision has been included in annual foreign operations appropriations legislation since
1985, and it is most recently included in the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act.24 It is applied to family planning assistance funded through all accounts under that act.
Additional Provision on Involuntary Sterilization and Abortion
(1985)
In 1985, Congress included a provision in the FY1986 Foreign Assistance and Related Programs
Appropriations Act requiring that no funds made available under part I of the FAA may be
obligated for any given country or organization if the President certifies that the use of such funds
violates the aforementioned Helms, Biden, or involuntary sterilization amendments.25 The
amendment states the following:
None of the funds made available to carry out part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended, may be obligated or expended for any country or organization if the President
certifies that the use of these funds by any such country or organization would violate any
of the above provisions related to abortions or involuntary sterilizations [the Helms, Biden,
and involuntary sterilization amendments].26
The provision has been included in annual foreign operations appropriations. Most recently, it is
incorporated into Section 7018 of the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.27 It
applies to all foreign assistance activities in the act that are authorized under part I of the FAA
(development assistance).
Kemp-Kasten Amendment (1985)
In 1985, Congress agreed to the Kemp-Kasten amendment as part of the FY1985 Supplemental
Appropriations Act.28 The measure, introduced by Senator Bob Kasten and Representative Jack
Kemp, states the following:
None of the funds made available under this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior
appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization or program which, as
determined by the President, supports or participates in the management of a program of
coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.29
The provision was adopted due to the concerns of President Reagan and some Members of
Congress that the U.N. Population Fund’s (UNFPA’s) program in China engaged in or provided
funding for abortion or coercive family planning programs.30 It has been included in annual
foreign operations appropriations legislation measures since FY1985. Although it applies to any
organization or program that supports or participates in coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization, a determination has only been made regarding UNFPA.

24 Ibid.
25 Section 541 of Section 101(i) of H.J.Res. 465, P.L. 99-190 (99 Stat. 1291), approved December 19, 1985.
26 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2855.
27 Ibid.
28 Chapter V of P.L. 99-88 (99 Stat. 323), approved August 15, 1985.
29 S.Amdt. 388 to H.R. 2577 [99th], agreed to on June 20, 1985.
30 UNFPA, established in 1969, is the world’s largest source of population and reproductive health programs and the
principal unit within the United Nations for global population issues. For more information, see archived CRS Report
RL32703, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, by Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service

6

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Most recently, the provision is included in the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act, which also states,
any determination made under the previous proviso must be made not later than 6 months
after the date of the enacted of this Act, and must be accompanied by the evidence and
criteria utilized to make the determination.31
In 18 of the past 36 years, the United States has not contributed to UNFPA as a result of executive
branch determinations that UNFPA’s program in China violated the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
For seven years, the George W. Bush Administration transferred funds appropriated for UNFPA to
other foreign aid activities. The Obama Administration supported U.S. funding for the
organization, noting that its decision highlighted the President’s “strong commitment” to
international family planning, women’s health, and global development.32 The United States is
currently not providing funding to UNFPA under Kemp-Kasten; since 2017, the Trump
Administration has issued determinations finding that UNFPA “supports, or participates in the
management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization” through its country
program in China.33
In recent years, in response to concerns regarding UNFPA’s program in China and in addition to
Kemp-Kasten restrictions, Congress has enacted certain conditions for U.S. funding of UNFPA.
Most recently, Section 7057 of the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act requires
that:
 funds not made available for UNFPA because of any provision of law shall be
transferred to the Global Health Programs account and made available for family
planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities;
 none of the funds made available to UNFPA may be used for a country program
in China;
 U.S. contributions to UNFPA be kept in an account segregated from other
UNFPA accounts and not be commingled with other sums; and
 for UNFPA to receive U.S. funding, it cannot fund abortions.
The act also required the Secretary of State to submit a report to the committees on appropriations
on dollar-for-dollar withholding of funds. Specifically, not later than four months after the
enactment of the act, the Secretary is required to submit a report to the committees on
appropriations indicating the funds UNFPA is budgeting for a country program in China. If the
Secretary’s report states that funds will be spent on such a program, then the amount of such
funds shall be deducted from the funds made available to UNFPA for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which the report is submitted.34

31 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2827.
32 In March 2009, a State Department spokesperson confirmed that the U.S. government would contribute $50 million
to UNFPA as provided by the FY2009 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
33 The most recent determination was transmitted to Congress on June 16, 2020. The Administration stated: “While
there is no evidence that UNFPA directly engages in coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China, the
agency continues to indicate in its country program documents provided to the agency’s [UNFPA’s] executive board in
approving the program, that it partners on family planning with the NHFPC [National Health and Family Planning
Commission of the People’s Republic of China] and thus can be found to support, or participate in the management of
China’s coercive policies for purposes of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.” (“Memorandum of Justification for the
Determination Regarding the ‘Kemp-Kasten Amendment,’” signed by Michael Pompeo, Secretary of State, June 16,
2020.)
34 The FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act provided $32.5 million for UNFPA through the
Congressional Research Service

7

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Livingston Amendment (1986)
In 1986, Representative Bob Livingston introduced an amendment as part of FY1987 continuing
appropriations that prohibited the United States from discriminating against organizations based
on their religious or conscientious commitment to offer only “natural” family planning when
awarding related grants:
[I]n awarding grants for natural family planning under section 104 of the Foreign
Assistance Act no applicants shall be discriminated against because of such applicant’s
religious or conscientious commitment to offer only natural family planning; and,
additionally, all such applicants shall comply with the requirements of the previous proviso
[DeConcini amendment].35
The Livingston amendment is related to the DeConcini amendment, which states that the United
States shall only fund family planning projects that offer a range of family planning methods and
services, either directly or through referral. The measure ensures that the United States cannot
discriminate against organizations that support natural family planning methods when awarding
family planning grants and agreements, providing such organizations comply with the DeConcini
amendment.
The provision has been included in foreign operations appropriations, and it is most recently
incorporated into the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.36 It is applied to
family planning assistance from any account appropriated under that act.
Leahy Amendment (1994)
The Leahy amendment, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy in 1994 as an amendment to the
FY1995 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, seeks
to clarify language in the Helms amendment, which states, “None of the funds made available …
may be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to
motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions” (emphasis added).37 The Leahy provision
aims to address some policymakers’ concerns that providing information or counseling about all
legal pregnancy options could potentially be viewed as violating the Helms amendment. The most
recent version states:
[F]or purposes of this or any other Act authorizing or appropriating funds for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs, the term ‘‘motivate,’’ as it
relates to family planning assistance, shall not be construed to prohibit the provision,
consistent with local law, of information or counseling about all pregnancy options.38
The amendment has been included in foreign operations appropriations in various forms since it
first appeared in enacted legislation. It was included in the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, and applies to all enacted authorization and appropriations legislation related
to the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs.

International Organizations and Programs account, subject to the Kemp-Kasten amendment and Section 7057
restrictions. In some years, UNFPA also received funding through global humanitarian and health accounts. (For
Section 7057, see 133 Stat. 2918-2919 of the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.
35 Title II of Section 101(f) of H.J.Res. 738, P.L. 99-500 (100 Stat. 1783-217), approved October 18, 1986.
36 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2828.
37 P.L. 103-306 (108 Stat. 1612), approved on August 23, 1994.
38 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2828.
Congressional Research Service

8

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Tiahrt Amendment (1998)
In October 1998, Congress enacted an amendment introduced by Representative Todd Tiahrt as
part of the FY1999 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act that directs voluntary family planning projects supported by the United States to comply with
five specific requirements.39 The provision, which became known as the Tiahrt amendment, has
been included in foreign operations appropriations in each subsequent fiscal year. It states that
“funds shall be made available” only to voluntary family planning projects that meet the
following requirements:
(1) service providers or referral agents in the project shall not implement or be subject to
quotas, or other numerical targets, of total number of births, number of family planning
acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family planning (this provision shall not
be construed to include the use of quantitative estimates or indicators for budgeting and
planning purposes);
(2) the project shall not include payment of incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial
reward to: (A) an individual in exchange for becoming a family planning acceptor; or (B)
program personnel for achieving a numerical target or quota of total number of births,
number of family planning acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family
planning;
(3) the project shall not deny any right or benefit, including the right of access to participate
in any program of general welfare or the right of access to health care, as a consequence of
any individual’s decision not to accept family planning services;
(4) the project shall provide family planning acceptors comprehensible information on the
health benefits and risks of the method chosen, including those conditions that might render
the use of the method inadvisable and those adverse side effects known to be consequent
to the use of the method; and
(5) the project shall ensure that experimental contraceptive drugs and devices and medical
procedures are provided only in the context of a scientific study in which participants are
advised of potential risks and benefits; and, not less than 60 days after the date on which
the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development determines
that there has been a violation of the requirements contained in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or
(5) of this proviso, or a pattern or practice of violations of the requirements contained in
paragraph (4) of this proviso, the Administrator shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations a report containing a description of such violation and the corrective action
taken by the Agency.40
Representative Tiahrt introduced the amendment amid media and NGO reports that some
governments were offering financial incentives to meet sterilization quotas. At that time, many
poor women living in rural Peru were reportedly forcibly sterilized and provided with little or no
information about alternative contraception methods. In some cases, complications from
unsanitary sterilizations led to sickness or death.41 The intent of the amendment was to ensure that
U.S. foreign assistance did not support such practices.42

39 Section 101 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277,
112 Stat. 2681-154), approved on October 21, 1998.
40 FY2020 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 133 Stat. 2827-2828. The quotation is formatted for clarity; it
appears differently in the act.
41 Calvin Sims, “Using Gifts as Bait, Peru Sterilizes Poor Women,” New York Times, February 15, 1998.
42 For further information on the intent of the Tiahrt amendment and the debate surrounding its adoption, see “Foreign
Congressional Research Service

9

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

In April 1999, USAID issued guidance on implementing the Tiahrt requirements for voluntary
family planning projects. It also provided technical guidance on the “Comprehensible
Information” paragraph of the amendment.43 Since the Tiahrt amendment was enacted, USAID
reports there have been violations in Peru, Guatemala, and the Philippines. In 2007, the USAID
Inspector General conducted an audit of USAID’s compliance with the amendment. Several
USAID operating units were audited, including the Global Health Bureau, USAID/Bolivia,
USAID/Ethiopia, and USAID/Mali. The audit report, published in February 2008, found no
further violations of the amendment.44
Most recently, the Tiahrt amendment was included in the FY2020 State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act. It is applied to family planning assistance funded through all accounts under
that act.
Selected Executive Branch Policies and Restrictions
This section provides an overview of two executive branch policies addressing abortion or
voluntary family planning: the Mexico City policy (also referred to as “Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance,” or PLGHA), and USAID Policy Determination 3 (PD-3) on voluntary
sterilization.
The Mexico City Policy (“Protecting Life in Global Health
Assistance”)
The Mexico City policy has traditionally restricted U.S. family planning assistance to foreign
NGOs engaged in voluntary abortion activities, even if such activities are conducted with non-
U.S. funds. Unlike the aforementioned laws which are enacted by Congress, the policy has, for
the most part, been implemented and reversed through statements and instruments issued by the
executive branch.45 Such actions have generally been split along party lines, with Republicans
supporting the policy and Democrats opposing it. Most recently, the Trump Administration
reinstated and expanded the policy to include all global health assistance.
Background and Context: Previous Administration Actions
The Mexico City policy has remained a controversial issue in U.S. foreign assistance. It was first
announced by President Reagan at the International Conference on Population held in Mexico
City in 1984. At the time, it represented a shift in U.S. population policy; under the
aforementioned Helms amendment and other international abortion and family planning-related

Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999,” House debate, Congressional Record,
Vol. 144, No. 124, September 17, 1998, pp. H7946-H8013.
43 See (1) Guidance for Implementing the Tiahrt Requirements for Voluntary Family Planning Projects, USAID, April
1999, and (2) Technical Guidance on the “Comprehensible Information” Paragraph of the Tiahrt Clause, USAID, April
1999.
44 Office of the Inspector General: Audit of USAID’s Effectiveness in Complying with Tiahrt Voluntary Family
Planning Requirements, Audit Report No. 9-000-08-005-P, February 8, 2008.
45 In 1999, Congress enacted modified Mexico City abortion restrictions that applied only to funds appropriated in
FY2000, representing the first and only time a version of the policy was enacted into law (Section 599 (d) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113)). The Clinton White House accepted the conditions in exchange
for congressional support for the payment of nearly $1 billion in arrears owed by the United States to the United
Nations. The enacted Mexico City policy restrictions expired at the end of FY2000.
Congressional Research Service

10

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

restrictions, no U.S. funds could be used to pay for the performance of an abortion as a method of
family planning or for involuntary sterilizations. However, U.S. and foreign recipients of USAID
grants could use their own resources and funds received from other sources to engage, where
legal, in abortion-related activities—though they were required to maintain separate accounts for
U.S. money in order to demonstrate compliance with U.S. abortion restrictions. The policy, as
issued under President Reagan, required foreign NGOs receiving USAID family planning
assistance (either as a direct recipient or a subrecipient through a U.S. NGO that receives USAID
funds) to certify in writing that they did not, and would not during the time of the funding
agreement, perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.
The Mexico City policy as described above was maintained by President George H. W. Bush and
rescinded by President Clinton in 1993.46 President George W. Bush issued a memorandum
reinstating the policy in January 2001 and expanded it in August 2003 to include all assistance for
voluntary population planning furnished to foreign NGOs by the State Department.47 President
Bush also instituted exceptions for cases of rape, incest, conditions that threatened the life of the
mother, and for postabortion care.48 Several months later, he announced additional exceptions for
funding provided through the President’s Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and
intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and its affiliated entities.49 President
Obama revoked President Bush’s policy in January 2009, issuing a memorandum stating that
“these excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover,
they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs
in foreign nations.”50
Trump Administration Expansion
In January 2017, President Trump reinstated George W. Bush’s January 2001 memorandum that
reestablished the Mexico City policy and expanded it to include global health assistance. In the
memo, he directed the Secretary of State to “implement a plan to extend the requirements of the
reinstated memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies” in
coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and to “ensure that U.S. taxpayer
dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”51
The expanded policy, which the Trump Administration named “Protecting Life in Global Health
Assistance” (PLGHA), was approved by the Secretary of State in May 2017. According to

46 During the George H. W. Bush Administration, several Members of Congress attempted unsuccessfully to overturn
the Mexico City policy, arguing that existing congressional restrictions, such as the Helms and Biden amendments,
were sufficient. Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development - Subject: AID
Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy, President Bill Clinton, January 22, 1993.
47 Memorandum for the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development – Subject: Restoration of the
Mexico City Policy, President George W. Bush, January 22, 2001.
48 Memorandum for all Contracting Officers and Negotiators from Francis A. Donovan, Acting Director – Subject:
Restoration of the Mexico City Policy, White House Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of USAID, March 29,
2001.
49 Memorandum for the Secretary of State – Subject: Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning, President George
W. Bush, August 19, 2003.
50 Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Administrator of USAID – Subject: Mexico City Policy and
Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning, President Barack Obama, January 23, 2009.
51 Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of
USAID – Subject: Mexico City Policy, January 23, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

11

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

Administration officials, “global health assistance” applies to about $8.8 billion in funding for
international health programs appropriated to the Department of State, USAID, and the
Department of Defense—including programs addressing HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health,
malaria, global health security, and family planning and reproductive health.52 PLGHA excludes
global health assistance to national or local governments, public international organizations, and
other similar multilateral entities. It also excludes humanitarian assistance, such as State
Department migration and refugee assistance activities, USAID disaster and humanitarian-relief
activities, and Defense Department disaster and humanitarian relief. Similar to previous iterations
of the policy, it includes exemptions for rape, incest, and conditions that threaten the life of the
mother, as well as postabortion care.53
In February 2018 and August 2020, the State Department published reviews of PLGHA. The first
review found that some recipients and subrecipients refused to agree to PLGHA terms and
acknowledged that with less than six months of implementation, it was too early to fully assess
the policy.54 The second review found that of 1,340 prime awardees, 8 declined to agree to the
terms of the policy, as well as 47 subawardees.55 In addition, a March 2020 report by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that an estimated $12 billion in awards planned
to be provided through September 2018, covering about 1,300 global health projects, were subject
to PLGHA restrictions. In 54 instances, NGOs did not accept the policy, resulting in about $150
million in declined U.S. funding.56
Congressional Perspectives
Over the years, some Members of Congress have introduced or voted on legislation to permanently establish or
reverse different version of the Mexico City policy/PLGHA; however, none of these proposals have been enacted.
Supporters of the policy maintains that it prevents U.S. taxpayer dol ars from being used to pay for abortion or
the promotion of abortion worldwide. They contend that although existing laws ban U.S. funds from being used to
perform or promote abortions abroad, money is fungible; organizations receiving U.S. taxpayer funding could use
U.S. resources for family planning or global health activities while diverting money raised from other sources to
perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The policy, they argue, closes this
“loophole.”
Opponents contend that the policy deprives women of access to quality health care and information about their
health and well-being. They argue that NGOs may cut back or eliminate family planning and other health services

52 Department of State, “Background Briefing: Senior Administration Officials on Protecting Life in Global Health
Assistance,” May 15, 2017.
53 “Abortions performed for fetal abnormalities” was added to the list of abortion restrictions under the policy. These
exceptions and other modifications are explained in USAID guidance, “Standard Provisions for Non-U.S.
Nongovernmental Organizations: A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 303,” USAID, revised on May 22, 2019.
54 See Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six-Month Review,” February 6, 2018, and
“Review of the Implementation of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy,” August 18, 2020. The first
review stated that four prime recipients and 12 subrecipients (out of 733 awards tracked) refused to agree to the
PLGHA terms. It also identified a number of challenges and possible action items—one of the foremost being to
improve understanding of the policy’s intent, implementation, compliance, and oversight. For example, many
implementing organizations sought clarification of the definition of certain terms related to PLGHA to ensure they
understand the full scope of the policy and implications for their participation. In late 2019, as follow-up to the first
review, the department issued clarification of some terms, including the “financial support” requirement under the
PLGHA standard provision in grants and cooperative agreements. For more information, see questions 33-37 in
“Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers,” September 2019.
55 For more information on PLGHA, see CRS In Focus IF11013, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy,
by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther and Sara M. Tharakan.
56 GAO Report 20-347, “Awardees’ Declinations of U.S. Planned Funding Due to Abortion-Related Restrictions,”
March 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

12

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

because they do not want to risk losing U.S. funding. Some further contend that reduced access to such services
may increase the use of abortion as a method of family planning, leading to a rise in maternal deaths as the result
of unsafe or il egal abortions. Critics also maintain that the policy imposes a so-called “gag” rule on NGOs that aim
to provide women with comprehensive information about their health care options, or change laws and
regulations in developing nations to make abortions safe. Such restrictions, critics note, would be unconstitutional
if applied to U.S. groups working in the United States.
USAID Policy Determination 3 on Voluntary Sterilization
Policy Determination 3 (PD-3) on voluntary sterilization (VS) was issued by USAID in
September 1982 with the purpose of ensuring that voluntary sterilization services funded by the
U.S. government protect the needs and rights of individuals.57 According to USAID, such
protections are necessary given the special nature of VS as a highly personal and permanent
surgical procedure.58 PD-3 outlines a number of requirements for USAID voluntary sterilization
services, including the following:
 Informed consent—USAID assistance to VS service programs is contingent on
satisfactory determination that such services, performed in whole or in part with
USAID funds, are performed only after the acceptor of the procedure has
voluntarily presented himself or herself at the treatment facility and given his or
her informed consent.
 Ready access to other methods—Where VS services are available, other means
of family planning should also be readily available at a common location, thus
allowing the acceptor to have a choice of family planning methods.
 No incentive payments—USAID funds cannot be used to pay potential
acceptors of sterilization to induce their acceptance of VS. In addition, the fee or
cost structure applied to VS and other contraceptives shall be established in such
a way that no financial incentive is created for sterilization over another
method.59
PD-3 also provides guidance on payments to VS service acceptors, providers, and referral agents.
Certain types of payment are not considered incentives provided they are “reasonable.”
Determination of a reasonable payment must be based on a country- and program-specific basis
using knowledge of social and economic circumstances. Specifically:

57 Section V, “Annex” of Population Assistance—USAID Policy Paper, USAID Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination, September 1982. Also see Policy Determination 3 and Addendum: USAID Policy Guidelines on
Voluntary Sterilization.
58 USAID states that voluntary sterilization services include activities that are primarily intended to provide voluntary
male and female sterilizations to persons requesting this type of contraceptive procedure. In the context of PD-3, they
may also include voluntary sterilization training programs.
59 Drawn from Policy Determination 3 and Addendum: USAID Policy Guidelines on Voluntary Sterilization. Other
requirements are (1) quality of VS services: medical personnel who operate on sterilization patients must be well-
trained and qualified in accordance with local medical standards, and equipment will be the best available; (2)
sterilization and health services: VS programs shall be conducted as an integral part of the total health care services of
the recipient country and shall be performed with respect to the overall health and well-being of the prospective
acceptors; and (3) country policies: USAID should take appropriate precautions through consultations with host
country officials to minimize the prospect of misunderstandings concerning potential VS activities.
Congressional Research Service

13

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law

 VS acceptors may generally receive recompense for legitimate extra expenses
related to VS (such as transportation, food, medicines, and lost wages during a
recovery period);
 VS service providers may receive per-case payment and compensation for
related items (such as anesthesia, personal costs, transportation, and pre- and
postoperative care); and
 VS service referral agents may receive per-case payment for extra expenses
incurred in informing or referring VS clients.60
PD-3 applies to family planning assistance from any account where USAID funds are used for
whole or partial direct support of the performance of voluntary sterilization activities. It applies to
U.S. NGOs, foreign NGOs, public international organizations, and governments.

Author Information

Luisa Blanchfield

Specialist in International Relations

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

60 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R41360 · VERSION 27 · UPDATED
14