Keep Kids in School Act

Mr. President, if you open a history book in any middle school classroom in America, you are going to find a very familiar pattern. Throughout history, societies have repeatedly decided that certain groups of people were exceptions to the promise of human dignity.

When we look back on those injustices, it seems almost impossible to understand how people could have accepted such profound disregard for human life. Yet history shows that these tragedies rarely begin with hatred alone; they begin with a more subtle idea that some human beings somehow fall outside the circle of protection owed to everyone else.

Every generation faces its own unique question about human dignity, which brings me to a question, and I would like my colleagues and the American people and especially the next generation of leaders--some of them in this room today--the question is, Who deserves human dignity?

In the land of freedom and opportunity, we are constantly talking about equality, inclusion, and defending the most vulnerable, and we should ask those questions. I mean, those are fundamentally American values. But those ideas only mean something if they are applied consistently.

For 250 years, Americans have prided ourselves on being the voice of the voiceless, but for some reason, far too many fall silent when the dignity of the smallest and the most vulnerable members of our human race is questioned, and that is the unborn.

But human dignity is not conditional. It does not depend on age or size or ability or circumstance. Human dignity is inherent. It can't be earned. It can't be granted. It can't be taken away. And the most fundamental dignity we all possess is the right to life.

So if we aspire to be a nation that defends the equal dignity of every person, then our actions both at home and abroad must reflect the values we profess. The United States cannot credibly champion human rights while pursuing policies that deny the unborn the most basic right of all, and that is the right to life.

So as we approach the fourth anniversary of the ruling in Dobbs, there is more that we must do to defend the right to life. So I applaud the Trump administration for uncovering loopholes that previous administrations exploited to use U.S. foreign aid programs to fund and promote abortion abroad.

One of the greatest measures of American leadership is not merely the power that we profess, but it is the principles that we project. And it is the values we champion abroad that should reflect the values we share at home.

If human dignity is truly universal, then the foreign aid funded by American taxpayers must be consistent with our Nation's most fundamental truth, and that is that every human life possesses inherent dignity and that the first human right is the right to life.

That is why I have introduced the Protecting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Act, so that we don't repeat history.

My bill would codify the Trump administration's efforts to once again put American values first in U.S. foreign assistance programs, preventing any future administration from using such programs as loopholes to deny life to the unborn.

One day, history will render its verdict on whether we choose to defend human dignity. It is my hope that future generations find that we remain faithful to America's first principle: that we are all created equal.

I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4873 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a

third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, my colleague, whom I very much respect, has chosen to support the loophole through this objection. It allows taxpayer dollars to be used in a manner contrary to the values we cherish at home, allowing no voice to the voiceless.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say a couple of words about this bill that I strongly oppose.

This bill would expand the already draconian global gag rule to apply to more types of foreign aid, more services, and more organizations by codifying the Trump administration's so-called human flourishing policy. So this would basically be a gag rule not just on global health programs, which is bad enough, but on all nonmilitary foreign assistance.

What it would do is it would say that any organization anywhere in the world that provides, refers, or even mentions abortion or support of LGBTQ+ people or any diversity and inclusion initiative would be banned from getting U.S. foreign assistance. This gag order would put-- basically, it would put a gag order on the world's most vulnerable people by the world's most wealthy Nation.

What is ironic about this is that this is not just a cruel policy but an incoherent policy because it would not in any way reduce abortion, which is what my colleagues say their goal is.

There was a previous narrower gag rule earlier imposed by the Trump administration, and in that case, abortion rates actually went up in those countries. Why is that? Well, because of this gag rule. It resulted in less access to contraceptives, to birth control, and more unintended pregnancies.

This is about forcing foreign governments and forcing multilateral institutions and NGOs to accept an ideological agenda or risk being cut off entirely from U.S. assistance.

I think everybody should have the ability to make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives and their own futures. Certainly, they should be able to make those decisions without somebody in Washington, DC, who knows nothing about their lives telling them what to do.

We should be joined together in our belief that U.S. foreign assistance should be helping people, lift them out of poverty, support them in getting the services they need, and not trying to impose an ideological gag rule on their activities.

Therefore, I object.