Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to repeal the Helms amendment, thereby allowing U.S. foreign aid to fund abortion services and related training and equipment in other countries.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by repealing the Helms amendment, which currently prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortion services. It explicitly authorizes the use of these funds for comprehensive reproductive health care services, including abortion services, training, and equipment, globally. The bill also includes a series of findings asserting that abortion is a critical component of healthcare and that U.S. restrictions harm people seeking to terminate pregnancies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill aligns U.S. foreign policy with international human rights standards, recognizing abortion as a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care. They contend that lifting the Helms amendment would reduce unsafe abortions and maternal deaths in developing countries, improve health outcomes, and empower individuals to control their reproductive lives, especially in light of global trends towards liberalizing abortion laws and the negative impacts of the Dobbs decision.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that using U.S. taxpayer funds for abortion services abroad is morally objectionable and goes against the values of a significant portion of the American public. They may contend that such funding could inadvertently support practices that are illegal or culturally sensitive in recipient countries, potentially undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts and sovereignty concerns. Critics might also argue that foreign assistance should prioritize other health initiatives or humanitarian aid.
The bill is very short and its core provisions are immediately clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its primary intent.
Section 4(1)(A)
Repeal of Prohibition on Abortion Funding (Helms Amendment)
This provision strikes paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which is commonly known as the Helms amendment. The Helms amendment currently prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for 'the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.' Its removal would eliminate the statutory barrier to using U.S. foreign aid for abortion services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that repealing the Helms amendment is essential to align U.S. foreign policy with global health best practices and human rights. They contend it would prevent thousands of maternal deaths and millions of unsafe abortions by enabling access to safe, legal care, particularly in developing countries where such services are often restricted or dangerous.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that repealing the Helms amendment would force U.S. taxpayers to fund abortions in other countries, which they view as morally objectionable. They contend that foreign assistance should not be used for abortion services and that such a change could be seen as imposing U.S. values on sovereign nations, potentially causing diplomatic friction.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between promoting reproductive health and human rights globally, as understood by its proponents, and the moral objections of those who oppose public funding for abortion, particularly in an international context. It also involves balancing U.S. foreign policy objectives with the sovereignty and diverse legal frameworks of recipient nations.
Section 4(3), inserting new subsection (g)
Explicit Authorization for Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services
This provision explicitly authorizes the use of funds made available under Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (which covers development assistance) for comprehensive reproductive health care services, including abortion services, training, and equipment. This goes beyond merely removing the prohibition by affirmatively stating that such funds may be used for these purposes, ensuring clarity and intent.