Once Dobbs came down, abortion became much more of a state debate than ever before. But there are still battles to be won in the nation’s highest legislature.

While Congress may be far from passing a national measure to completely protect the unborn, the pro-life movement still has warriors in D.C. who are pushing for justice in incremental steps.

This year’s session of Congress was still in its opening month when U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) put forward a bill to keep American dollars from funding the slaughter of unborn children in other countries.

Their proposed law is called the “Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act” (PLFA).

If enacted, PFLA would remove federal funding from foreign and domestic organizations that are involved in the abortion industry in any number of ways.

First off, there would be no funding for a foreign organization that performs abortions. There would likewise be no funding if the organization merely promotes abortions. Nor if it provides referrals, counseling, or training for such. And not even if it merely supplies funding to other organizations who do these things.

The bill also applies similar restrictions to domestic organizations.

Lee and Paul weren’t by themselves in this; the legislation garnered nineteen cosponsors when first put forward, including Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Tim Scott (R-SC). Yet, as of now (three months later) it appears to still be sitting on the waitlist in a Senate committee.

Even if it doesn’t make it any further this session, I think we can make a couple observations about this bill and similar ones like it that may appear in the future.

As a preliminary note, recall our recent discussion of the intramural pro-life debate between abolitionism and prudentialism. Some in the pro-life movement may rightly observe that any incremental measures towards protecting life still permit at least some babies to die.

Others may observe that if we only pushed for complete abolition, we’d never get anywhere. And, in a sense, they’re both right. I explained my view that we should all have the heart of an abolitionist (never ceasing to desire an instant halt to the travesty) and the wisdom of a prudentialist (knowing how to practically bring the halt as soon as possible).

So let’s take a look at this bill now. And obviously, the ideal we’d all pray for would be a majority of Congressmen having a change of heart and lining up behind a complete abolition bill.

But when that’s impossible, I see bills like this one still contributing to pro-life momentum in three ways.

The bill removes a level of complicity that the American government would have in the sin of abortion, because funding is participation.

Even if you are not the one actually committing the crime, enabling someone else to commit the crime is tantamount to participating. You’re guilty if you loan your car to a friend whom you know will use it to rob a bank.

And the American government is guilty if it gives taxpayer dollars to organizations whom it knows will use them to kill children. True, abortions may continue to go on after U.S. funding ceases, just as your friend may find someone else to loan him a car. But the bottom line is that you’re no longer complicit.

Further, even though it doesn’t technically ban abortions, the bill could very well have the same effect in locations where the abortion providers were really counting on that U.S. money to stay in operation.

The laws of finances are powerful laws indeed. And because this bill is aimed at foreign assistance, it’s taking advantage of one of the main ways the U.S. can exert influence over any location not within its jurisdiction: the pocketbook.

The U.S. can’t exactly pass a law banning Mexican abortions, for example, but it can pass a law that makes Mexican abortions harder to sustainably perform.

Moreover, even if bills like this seem incremental, keep in mind that increments are the way to build momentum. The left didn’t make schools into indoctrination centers overnight or completely overturn our societal conception of marriage overnight.

Sure, there were landmark moments at various points, but those were usually preceded by long periods of careful bricklaying beforehand. And bricklaying happens one brick at a time. Even small increments set precedent for more and bigger increments down the road, and I think conservatives should be able to play this part of the progressive playbook better than the progressives do.

Successfully prohibiting federal foreign aid from supporting abortions could very well make it easier to push for tighter restrictions here at home.

So, while our abolitionist hearts should be far from satisfied that—humanly speaking—we can’t ban abortion immediately, our prudentialist minds should be able to pick out the tactical benefits from bills such as this.

And ultimately, this bill can be motivated by the exact same principles that a total abolition bill would. As Mike Lee mentioned when he introduced this bill—

“Each human life, born and unborn, has immeasurable dignity and worth. The lives of both an unborn baby and her mother matter; and healthcare should heal, protect, and preserve both their lives. Our laws and use of taxpayer money should reflect that truth, which is why I have introduced these bills.“

Well said, Senator Lee.