Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Foreign Relations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to reverse a decades-old restriction on U.S. foreign aid, allowing federal funds to support abortion services, training, and equipment globally.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by repealing the "Helms amendment," which has prohibited the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortion services since 1973. It explicitly authorizes the use of federal foreign assistance funds for comprehensive reproductive health care services, including abortion services, training, and equipment, overriding any other conflicting law or policy. The bill also includes findings emphasizing abortion as a critical component of health care and the negative impacts of restrictions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that abortion is a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care, essential for women's health, economic empowerment, and gender equality. They contend that current restrictions lead to unsafe abortions and preventable deaths in developing countries, and that removing these barriers would align U.S. foreign policy with global health best practices and human rights.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas is morally objectionable and goes against deeply held values for many Americans. They may contend that such funding could be better used for other health services or development aid, and that it could impose controversial policies on sovereign nations.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it easy for a reader to quickly understand its core purpose and implications.
Section 4(1)(A)
Repeal of Prohibition on Abortion Funding in Foreign Assistance (Helms Amendment)
This provision strikes paragraph (1) of subsection (f) of Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This paragraph, commonly known as the Helms amendment, has prohibited the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortion as a method of family planning since 1973. Its repeal would remove this statutory ban, allowing U.S. foreign aid to be used for abortion services.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that repealing the Helms amendment is crucial to align U.S. foreign policy with global health best practices, reduce unsafe abortions, and save lives by allowing comprehensive reproductive health care to be funded. They point to evidence that restricting abortion does not reduce its incidence but increases associated health risks.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that repealing this amendment would force U.S. taxpayers to fund abortions in other countries, which they view as morally objectionable. They may also argue that such funding could divert resources from other essential health or development programs and impose U.S. values on other nations.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between expanding access to comprehensive health care, including abortion, as a public health imperative, and addressing deeply held moral and political objections to the use of taxpayer funds for such services.
Section 4(3)
Explicit Authorization for Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services
This provision inserts a new subsection (g) into Section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, explicitly stating that funds made available for development assistance may be used to provide comprehensive reproductive health care services, including abortion services, training, and equipment. This authorization is intended to apply "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or policy," providing a clear and strong directive.