New York Times Editorial Urges Obama To Adopt 'More Humane' Interpretation of Helms Amendment

March 18, 2013 — A flawed interpretation of the 1973 Helms amendment, designed to prevent "the use of United States foreign aid money to finance abortion overseas," severely hampers efforts to reduce the number of women who die each year as a result of unsafe abortions, a New York Times editorial states.

The editorial points out that the amendment -- which states that foreign aid may not be used to "pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions" -- clearly "excludes cases of life endangerment, incest and rape."

"Providing abortions to women and girls subjected to rape as a weapon of armed conflict obviously has nothing to do with family planning," the editorial states. However, that "has not stopped successive Republican and Democratic administrations from treating the amendment as an absolute abortion ban " and using it to prevent "foreign aid recipients from offering abortion information," the editorial adds.

"Mr. Obama has room under the law to abide by the amendment in a way that is true to its wording, more humane and consistent with his own ideals," the editorial concludes, adding, "He should use it" (New York Times, 3/17).