Trump, senators did the right thing agreeing to spare HIV/AIDS funding
I am deeply grateful that, amid this week's recission negotiations, the White House agreed to exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, commonly known as PEPFAR, from cuts in the recission package currently on the Senate floor.
The organization I work for, World Relief, is unashamedly pro-life. We are also deeply committed to the biblical vision that affirms the dignity and worth of every person as a bearer of God's image and likeness. These convictions compel us to speak out not only on behalf of the unborn but also for vulnerable mothers, children, and families around the world whose lives are sustained by U.S. global health investments.
Pro-lifers' convictions do not stop at birth, even if some would claim otherwise. We care deeply about the health and well-being of vulnerable mothers, children, and families. PEPFAR cares for them by providing antiretroviral treatment, HIV prevention services, and care for those affected by AIDS, especially the children of infected mothers. It helps ensure that children are born HIV-free, that mothers can live to raise their children, and that families can thrive instead of being torn to pieces by this disease.
As an organization, we affirm every presidential administration's right to review foreign assistance programs and ensure that ongoing initiatives and implementation are in alignment with the foreign policy objectives of the U.S. We also recognize that difficult fiscal decisions must be made in times of budgetary constraint.
President Trump's administration has taken significant steps toward protecting human life before birth, including defunding Planned Parenthood for a year in the recent 'Big Beautiful Bill' that he signed into law.
But when the rescissions package was proposed, we were concerned that the proposal overstated the urgency and scale of ideological concerns within programs like PEPFAR in order to justify a disproportionately large rollback of life-saving funding. If there were specific line items or grants within these global health programs that truly conflicted with pro-life or biblical values, we would support efforts to scrutinize and remove those elements. But the reality was that the total funding for the handful of programs raising concerns did not come anywhere close to the $8 billion in proposed cuts.
We are grateful that the White House and Senate exempted PEPFAR from these proposed cuts.
PEPFAR has saved more than 25 million lives since its inception. It has strengthened health systems and helped stabilize communities globally. This valuable program promotes maternal and child health, orphan care, and HIV/AIDS treatment — undeniably pro-life concerns.
Faith-based organizations and ministries have been central to PEPFAR's success, representing the most prolific providers of HIV services outside of the governments in many of the countries with which PEPFAR partners.
Faith communities also have a deeply rooted and trusted community presence. In most places, trusted messengers with access to those most in need of care is an essential prerequisite to effective delivery of life-saving messages about HIV prevention, care, and treatment.
Christ called his followers to care for the 'least of my brothers.' The Bible repeatedly calls us to defend the vulnerable, the sick, and those without a voice. PEPFAR is a tangible example of living out that calling on a global scale. It is one of the most successful, life-affirming humanitarian programs in history, and it has bipartisan roots that reflect a shared moral responsibility to protect life.
I am grateful that Congress has approached PEPFAR funding with wisdom and discernment. I affirm Congress's ability to restructure or reallocate where needed, but I urge every member to remember that PEPFAR reflects the American values of compassion, dignity, and support for human life from conception until natural death.
Chelsea Sobolik is director of government relations for World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization and the largest Evangelical refugee resettlement in the U.S. She is the author of 'Called to Cultivate: A Gospel Vision for Women and Work' and ' Longing for Motherhood — Holding onto Hope in the Midst of Childlessness.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says Coca-Cola Agrees to Use Cane Sugar for Coke in US
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post that Coca-Cola Co. has agreed to use cane sugar in Coke beverages sold in the US. The Dutch Intersection Is Coming to Save Your Life Advocates Fear US Agents Are Using 'Wellness Checks' on Children as a Prelude to Arrests LA Homelessness Drops for Second Year Manhattan, Chicago Murder Rates Drop in 2025, Officials Say 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' Trump said. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola.' The company followed up with a statement, saying 'We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca-Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range will be shared soon.' Shares of Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., a corn syrup maker, fell as much as 5.1% in premarket trading on Thursday. Coca-Cola shares were little changed. Coca-Cola already sells a version of Mexico Coke that contains cane sugar. The company declined to say whether it would transition all of its US beverages to cane sugar, adding that it will provide further detail when it reports earnings on July 22. Coke's original soda currently contains high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener made from corn, according to the company's website. The syrup is commonly used in packaged goods because it is more shelf stable, cheaper and sweeter than regular sugar, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has railed against the prevalence of ultra-processed foods, which are generally more likely to use the sweetener. He has said 'high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere,' contributing to making Americans unhealthy. US cane sugar production in the 2025-26 season is expected to account for roughly 30% of the nation's sugar supply, according to the Department of Agriculture. The remainder comes from sugar beets, as well as imports from Mexico and other countries. Corn Refiners Association President John Bode said in a statement that replacing high-fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn't make sense given Trump's support for US farmers and US manufacturing jobs. 'Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit,' he said. Trump famously drinks Diet Coke, which is artificially sweetened with aspartame. Coca-Cola Chief Executive James Quincey presented Trump with a custom bottle of Diet Coke to commemorate his inauguration earlier this year. --With assistance from Ilena Peng and Subrat Patnaik. (Updates with premarket shares in fourth paragraph. An earlier version corrected the name of the Cleveland Clinic.) How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All Forget DOGE. Musk Is Suddenly All In on AI How Hims Became the King of Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs The Quest for a Hangover-Free Buzz Thailand's Changing Cannabis Rules Leave Farmers in a Tough Spot ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Democrats are far more motivated than Republicans for next year's midterms, CNN poll finds
Democrats are far more energized than Republicans about participating in next year's midterms, but deeply negative perceptions of the Democratic Party and its officeholders raise questions about the party's ability to capitalize on that energy. Overall, 72% of Democrats and Democratic-aligned registered voters say they are extremely motivated to vote in next year's congressional election, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. That outpaces by 10 points deep motivation among the same group just weeks before the 2024 presidential election and stands 22 points above the share of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who feel the same way now. But just 28% of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably, the lowest mark for Democrats in the history of CNN's polling going back to 1992. Still, only 33% hold a favorable view of the Republican Party, which is the smallest share in CNN polling since just after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The poll suggests Democrats have a major opportunity next year – especially since midterms often favor the party out of power – but also a perception problem within their own ranks, particularly among younger voters. Among voters younger than 45 who align with the Democrats, just 52% say most Democratic members of Congress deserve reelection, and 48% say they do not. Older Democratic voters, by contrast, say these elected officials deserve another term by a wide margin, 76% to 24%. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say most of the Democratic Party's members of Congress do not deserve reelection and Democrats themselves are 7 points less likely than Republicans to believe members of Congress of their own party deserve reelection. Those historic lows on favorability are partly driven by Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents being less likely to have a favorable view of their own side (76% of Republican-aligned adults have a favorable view of the GOP, while just 58% on the Democratic side feel that way about their party). The American public largely agrees that full Republican control of the White House and Congress is bad for the country (57% feel that way), with negative views of both President Donald Trump and his party persistent since spring. Sixty percent say most GOP members of Congress do not deserve to be reelected. And the Democratic Party may hold an advantage among political independents. Nearly two-thirds of independents say full GOP control of the federal government is bad for the country, and slightly more independents say most Democratic members of Congress deserve reelection (38%) than say the same about most Republican members of Congress (33%). That gap grows to double digits among independent voters who are deeply motivated to vote next year (39% say most Democrats deserve reelection vs. 27% who say the same about most Republicans), though this is driven at least in part by the stronger motivation to vote among independents who lean Democratic. Trump won't be on the ballot in next year's election, but his presence is likely to loom large for both his supporters and opponents. While roughly 3 in 10 Americans call themselves Republicans, in a separate question, 37% of US adults say they're political supporters specifically of Trump. A smaller share has backed his commercial ventures: 11% have purchased the president's products or stayed in his hotels. That small group is particularly loyal: They are more motivated to vote than other Trump supporters (62% compared with 45% among Trump backers who haven't done so) and are more apt to say that Republican members of Congress largely deserve reelection (89% vs. 77%). The president's self-described supporters are demographically and politically similar regardless of whether they have spent money on a Trump-branded item or hotel stay. They are largely Republican, more male than female, mainly White, and less likely to have a college degree than those who do not consider themselves supporters. But having spent money on the Trump brand seems connected to a deeper political commitment to the president: 73% in that group say they strongly approve of his handling of the presidency, compared with 44% among those who say they support him politically but haven't purchased a product or stayed in one of his hotels. At the other end of the political spectrum, roughly a tenth of Americans say they've participated in some form of protest against Trump since his inauguration, with 8% saying they've shown up to a protest in person. With perceptions of both major parties broadly and persistently negative, Americans continue to express interest in a third political party. Overall, 63% say they would favor having a new third political party to run candidates against Republicans and Democrats for major offices. That's consistent with the appetite for a third party found in other recent public polls and about the same level of support for a third party found in CNN polling in early 2010. But interest dropped off significantly when voters were asked about the idea of a new party founded by Elon Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who has floated the 'America Party' amid his public falling-out with Trump. His idea for a third party has just 25% support, with 74% opposed. The poll finds impressions of Musk himself deeply negative – 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of him, while just 23% see him favorably. That's worsened since March, when he was a prominent part of Trump's efforts to slash spending and jobs in the federal government. That shift is almost entirely due to lost goodwill among the president's partisans: While 75% of Republicans had a positive view of him in March, that stands at just 42% now. His favorability ratings among Democrats and independents remain largely unchanged and deeply negative. Americans have long been receptive to the idea of a third party, but when specific ideas and agendas are attached to that new party, support tends to drop dramatically, and candidates from existing third parties rarely win meaningful support in American elections. In 2010, the Obama-era conservative movement known as the Tea Party sparked similar conversations about a third party spin-off from the GOP, as challengers from the right inspired by the Tea Party took on establishment Republicans leading in to that year's midterm elections. Later in 2010, though, only about half of Americans (48%) said they would favor the Tea Party movement becoming such a third party. The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from July 10-13 among a random national sample of 1,057 US adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results among all adults have a margin of sampling error of ±3.5 percentage points.
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Senate sends bill axing foreign aid, public broadcast funds to House
The U.S. Senate early Thursday approved a bill to cut foreign aid and public broadcasting funds. File Photo by Mike Theiler/UPI | License Photo July 17 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate early Thursday voted to rescind some $9 billion in federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, two areas of the government that the Trump administration has long targeted for cuts. The senators voted 51-48 mostly along party lines to approve House Bill 4 with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining the Democrats in voting against it. The bill, which now goes to the House of Representatives, will cut about $8 billion from international aid programs and about $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The bill passed at about 2:20 a.m. EDT Thursday. "President Trump promised to cut wasteful spending and root out misuse of taxpayer dollars," Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said on X prior to the vote. "Now, @SenateGOP and I are voting to make these cuts permanent. Promises made, promises kept." The vote comes as the Trump administration faces criticism from Democrats, and some Republicans, for having promised to reduce government spending but then last month passed a massive tax and spending cuts bill that is expected to add $3.3 trillion to the U.S. deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the Cato Institute states it could add nearly double that, as much as $6 trillion. The Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funds local news and radio infrastructure, has been a target of the Trump administration for funding a small portion of the budgets of PBS and NPR, which he accuses of being biased. Murkowski chastised her fellow Republicans for attacking a service that informed Alaskans that same day that there was a magnitude 7.3 earthquake and a tsunami warning. "Some colleagues claim they are targeting 'radical leftist organizations' with these cuts, but in Alaska, these are simply organizations dedicated to their communities," she said on social media. "Their response to today's earthquake is a perfect example of the incredible public service these stations provide. They deliver local news, weather updates and, yes, emergency alerts that save human lives."
