The long-standing debate over “reproductive rights” in the U.S. State Department’s human rights reports has been a lightning rod for political conflict. Now, a recent diplomatic cable from the current administration isn’t just seeking to remove a section; it’s deploying a new foreign policy. This is a historic reversal which will impact international diplomacy and the concept of human dignity.
Read Cristina Cevallos’ full article to understand this major shift, and the global call for the defense of human dignity, beginning at conception.
In defense of life,
Wendy Wixom, President
United Families International
The Strongest Pro- life Statement Ever Made by a U.S. Administration:
Abortion Is a Violation of Human Rights
Cristina Cevallos
Since the 1970s, the U.S. Department of State has been legally required to produce Annual Reports on the human rights situation in every UN member state. Over time, however, the content of these reports has increasingly become the center of political debate.
During the Obama administration, the reports incorporated a section on “reproductive rights.” This section was removed during President Trump’s first term, reinstated under President Joe Biden, and then removed once again during Donald Trump’s second administration.
On November 20, 2025, the Department of State issued a diplomatic cable to all U.S. embassies and consulates instructing diplomats compiling the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to document two key points for every nation: whether the government uses public funds to subsidize abortions or abortifacient drugs, and the estimated number of abortions performed each year. The reports will also include data on gender-transition procedures for minors and on restrictions to freedom of expression.
How U.S. Policy Helped Build the International Population-Control Regime
For decades, U.S. funding and diplomatic caution helped strengthen the global abortion industry. Inspired by malthusian ideas, the United States and other developed countries consciously set out in the 1960s to engineer a radical decline in Third World fertility. Many weaker nations, dependent on these powers for financial aid, military protection, and access to international markets, were pressured to adopt anti-natalist policies ranging from the free distribution of contraceptives to forced sterilization campaigns.
The 1961 U.S. Foreign Assistance Act marked a major turning point in the country’s approach to foreign aid. Unlike earlier programs focused on humanitarian relief or support for strategic allies, this legislation explicitly defined population control as a central objective. It embedded two core principles of the population-control movement into U.S. law: first, that population growth constitutes a national security concern; and second, that foreign aid should be prioritized for countries willing to limit their population growth.
As a result, governments seeking U.S. assistance were expected not only to commit to reducing demographic growth but also to implement programs aimed specifically at lowering fertility rates and reducing family size.
A Major Shift
As many scholars and advocates have noted, the enforcement of population-control policies has generated alarming reports of severe human rights violations, including forced abortions, coerced sterilizations, and increased human trafficking. In recent years, these policies have often been advanced through pressure from NGOs, conditional loans, and the imposition of international agreements. Such strategies undermine the common good and disregard the inherent dignity of every person.
The current Trump administration is not merely reversing this approach; it is actively reshaping the narrative. It has adopted an explicitly pro-life stance, framing state-funded abortion as a violation of human rights and asserting that “abortion is a human rights violation.” This represents the strongest statement on the issue ever made by a U.S. administration. By placing the intentional ending of unborn human life alongside the gravest assaults on human dignity, the administration argues that no nation can finance the destruction of innocent preborn children while maintaining credibility as an upholder of human rights.
This vision proposes a model of human flourishing that recognizes the intrinsic value of every person and defends human rights from the moment of conception. Anti-natalist policies not only violate fundamental ethical principles but also erode individual dignity and freedom. Abortion is indeed a violation of human rights because it ends the primary right that makes all others possible: the right to life.
A Call for the U.S. to Lead a Global Defense of Life and Family
Many countries are now struggling to overcome the demographic winter (fertility decline). To do so, the first essential step is to stop promoting abortion and instead rebuild national development on the foundation of families. The information provided by these reports will have global reach and significant consequences, and it is crucial that the United States lead this effort. If this nation seeks to preserve its identity as a defender of Western values and freedom, it must champion the protection of human rights, beginning from the moment of conception.
Cristina is a Peruvian lawyer with a master’s degree in Human Rights. She combines political experience with her work as a writer and researcher, focusing on bioethics, family, religious freedom, and cultural heritage.