Indiana Law Journal

Document Type


Publication Date

Summer 2020

Publication Citation

95 Indiana Law Journal 977 (2020)


This Comment argues that the Policy should be repealed because it undermines

firmly held First Amendment values and would be considered unconstitutional if

applied to domestic nongovernmental organizations (DNGOs). It proceeds in four

parts. Part I describes the inception of the Policy and contextualizes it among other

antiabortion policies that resulted as a backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court’s

landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. Part II explains the Policy’s actual effect on

FNGOs, particularly focusing on organizations based in Nepal and Peru, and argues

that the Policy undermines democratic processes abroad and fails to achieve its stated

objective: reducing the number of abortions. Part III examines current First

Amendment doctrine on unconstitutional conditions and free speech and

acknowledges standing issues regarding FNGOs. It argues that the Policy should be

considered a violation of protected First Amendment speech because if it were

applied to DNGOs it would be considered unconstitutional. In Part IV the Comment

considers foundational First Amendment values (the marketplace of ideas, individual

autonomy, and democratic self-governance) and argues that the Policy should be

repealed, or at the very least revised, because it undermines and contradicts each of

these values.