world

Trump bans federal funding for foreign NGOs that support abortion

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, Trump would rather the woman die? Trump is a murderer if he lets that happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Presto. There are no such things as "women's rights".

That's very original, but I hope you are not a school teacher or lecturer.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't think anyone cares but liberals, Obama never showed his college transcripts either and life went on.

Actually many independents and some conservatives that I know care to know...I am sure that there are millions that do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This was Mike Pence's doing, absolutely. Trump hasn't an original thought in his muddled orange head.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And from WaPo:

Yet again, a rule is back in effect to block U.S. aid to foreign organizations that use funds from other sources to perform or discuss abortions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apparently, U.S. tax dollars were being used to pay for non-government organizations to provide abortions outside of the U.S.A..

sigh no, they weren't.

The restrictions imposed Monday prohibit foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance from using non-U.S. funding to provide abortion services, information, counseling or referrals and from engaging in advocacy to promote abortion.

Even during the Obama years, US law banned direct funding for abortion services. But NGOs that performed the procedure were allowed to receive US funding for other programs, including those related to contraception access and post-abortion care.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/index.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

SuperLib - You tax dollars do not pay for abortions. Its against the law. What the anti-abortion crowd is doing now is going beyond that.

And be careful what you wish for. Any successes you get will be used against the pro-gun crowd. If it's ok to effectively shut down legal abortion clinics and make people drive to the next state then it will be ok to shut down perfectly legal gun shops and make buyers drive to another state.

Apparently, U.S. tax dollars were being used to pay for non-government organizations to provide abortions outside of the U.S.A.. That's why U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed a decree barring U.S. federal funding for foreign NGOs that support abortion. U.S. taxpayers will no longer be paying for foreign (non-U.S.A.) abortions in foreign (non-U.S.A.) countries.

The closing of gun shops inside the U.S. will still be left to the will of the next Democrat President, and a Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Pro-lifers (anti-abortion people) are usually the people who support cutting the funding to parental welfare, affordable care, public education, food stamps/SNAP and other government/subsidized assistance that actually helps people's livelihoods, and that includes the important things for raising children. They also support guns and the death penalty.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You tax dollars do not pay for abortions. Its against the law. What the anti-abortion crowd is doing now is going beyond that.

And be careful what you wish for. Any successes you get will be used against the pro-gun crowd. If it's ok to effectively shut down legal abortion clinics and make people drive to the next state then it will be ok to shut down perfectly legal gun shops and make buyers drive to another state.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am against abortion unless there is a medical reason or the pregnancy was caused by rape.

Abortion should not be a form of Birth Control, we got Confoms, the Pill, Spiral, etc for that. Educate yourself and Use them.

In additition each abortion increases the health risks for both Mother and Child in case she decides to have kids later on.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If a woman wishes to have an abortion, it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS but her own.

It sure as hell is my business if she's demanding that MY tax money go to pay for it!

If it's a woman's body and a woman's choice, than it should be a woman's bill when it comes to paying for it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

If a woman wishes to have an abortion, it is NOBODY'S BUSINESS but her own.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Given that men don't have wombs, I can't see that we have any right even to voice an opinion. It's one case where it really is that easy....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So Goldorak, what you are saying in essence is that there is no limit. A woman can do what she wants up to the moment of birth with no consequences, and she cannot be stopped for any reason. I'd also like to think that women would think about it carefully, and I'm sure that many do. However, it makes me uncomfortable to know that a fully formed and viable child could be aborted under the rules you advocate. That's a very extreme stance.

Presto. There are no such things as "women's rights". There ARE human rights however, and there is no evidence that Trump will do anything to endanger them. He strikes me as a pragmatic at the core rather than as an idealogue. If he hates women, why did he appoint one to run his campaign?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It is abundantly clear human rights, especially women's rights are not a priority of DT's administration. He seems to hate women after all, except when it concerns his personal pleasure as has been documented in the media. DT wastes no time on crafting his legacy.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Attila, Well I have to say I am one of those who think women should have absolute right to unrestricted abortions (or 'near'). My point is the ultimate decision should always be theirs and only theirs.

I added 'near' because in real life it's not as simple and straightforward as antiabortion activists make it sound: the woman and her partner meet with a healthcare professional, more than once, talk about the options, the whys and hows etc. So obviously the (tough) examples you mention are talked about. Ultimately, I still think the last word should belong to the woman (and her man if applicable) and yes I include the non life threatening conditions you allude to.

Re gender selective abortions, I do see think they are a totally different matter and would like to think a couple would not make this decision after having spoken to their doctor and other professionals.

Finally, I have never met nor heard of a woman taking this decision lightly and would think the overwhelming majority do not see abortion as 'just another method of contraception".

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Goldorak: thanks for the answer. By "NSA", I mean that a woman who is 33 weeks pregnant would be able to get an abortion with no negative repercussions. There are many who trumpet the idea of "unrestricted access" being a measure of womens' rights and freedom.

You have to be very careful about the "specific grounds" for having an abortion, particularly after the baby has become medically viable. Would gender selective abortions be OK with you? Aborting babies with certain non-life threatening, but inconvenient, health conditions (such as Down's Syndrome)? Only gets more and more complicated, trying to delve into the intentions of the mother-to-be and evaluating whether or not her concerns are worthy. Which of course then would necessitate some form of punishment for women who had abortions for reasons outside of those "specific grounds". Otherwise, the grounds are pointless.

As for protestors, I would agree that blocking access to a facility should not be permitted. No physical stuff whatsoever. However, free speech rights need to be respected, even if that speech makes the staff and their clients uncomfortable.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Is that what you think, sir?? Why, of course not!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Another ad hom attack? Here we go.

Innocent of aiding and abetting, are we?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No one with a functioning cerebral cortex believes that. No one!

No one with a functioning cerebral cortex believes in existing laws that can be proven. Yeah right. I think you would need a non-functioning cerebral cortex to believe what you just wrote.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Do you want women to have the right to have abortions up to the moment of birth, with no strings attached? If so, then be honest about it. If not, at what point does an abortion change from health care to infanticide?

What do you mean by NSA Attila? Do you think women who choose abortion should have to pay/be punished for it? Perso, I think all women should have the right to opt for an abortion up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, no ifs or buts and definitely NSA. Abortion after 15 weeks should still be permitted on therapeutical grounds and/or other specific reasons. Their choice.

As for protesters who harass women outside abortion clinics I think they should be prosecuted.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

GOP concern for a child ends at birth.

Actually, Crazy Joe, their concerns end just after conception, which is why they are so stingy with prenatal care. Before ACA, insurance for young females was commonly 18% higher than that for males precisely because females get pregnant, and pregnancy itself was termed a "pre-existing condition" which could disallow coverage. The ACA prohibits both practices.

We'll see if Paul Ryan and Trump manage to come up with something that doesn't throw women back to the bad ol' days, but that's lookin' unlikely.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The GOP scum care nothing for babies, and depending on their economic social status, nothing for moms either.

Oh, what an outright lie, they do

So why does the USA stand shoulder-to-malnourished shoulder with Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and Liberia (and no other nations on Earth) in not providing maternity care?

Tough love?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Seems the feminists don't care about unborn women, whereas conservatives care about all the unborn.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Groups like Planned Parenthood receive no federal funding for it. There are actually already laws in place saying the money cannot be used for abortions. So that's not the issue here.

No one with a functioning cerebral cortex believes that. No one! Liberals think that the rest of us are so stupid. Doesn't matter what the law says, the law also said that Obama didn't have the right to grant amnesty to 5000 illegal alien children and he tried. Again, I have no problem with Soros or any of the Hollyweird crowd use private funds to to fund abortions, but not with my tax dollars.

So good on Trump for this.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Right. I explained that already. "If you don't stop doing abortions then we'll take away your funding for breast cancer screenings."

1 ( +4 / -3 )

OK Superlib, I see your "thin edge of the wedge" theory. However, the question remains unanswered- at what stage of pregnancy should abortion be allowed or not? This is the key to the issue.

As for funding, it's pretty simple. Groups that want federal funds don't provide abortion services. People who think abortion services are so important are welcome to fund them privately. Given that this group is so large (apparently), that should be easy. A basic middle finger to the president play.

Doctors are free to do what they want. If they are attacked (rare case) then those who attack them should be prosecuted.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The stupid abortion debate rears it's ugly head again. Sigh.

Just to make things clear, we are past the point of banning the use of government funds for the perfectly legal and safe operation called abortion. Groups like Planned Parenthood receive no federal funding for it. There are actually already laws in place saying the money cannot be used for abortions. So that's not the issue here.

The GOP's next step is to ban all funding if the providers perform abortion, regardless of who pays for it. The message is, and I'm sure women must love this, "If you don't stop doing abortions then we'll take away your funding for breast cancer screenings." It's your basic scorched earth play.

And it gets better.

A lot of these organizations spend quite a bit on contraception. So if you strip them of all funding then you raise the risk of an increased number of abortions due to unplanned pregnancies from the lack of support for contraceptives, including education. It's your basic shoot yourself in the foot play (and take quite a few women down with you.)

These types of organizations are critical because they help to stop minor health problems from turning into major ones. They are a source of education and services that women need to stay healthy. It's a smart thing for a society to do.

But, ya know, screw all that because some people don't like abortion.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I'd like to see the USA stop funding killing of all people, born and unborn, around the world. I don't have any issue with the USA not funding abortions around the world.

But I'd also like women to retain their right to choose the best option for themselves and NOT be hindered in getting knowledge about all the options available to them. 87% of counties in the USA do not have abortion services available. This can create a hardship for women least able to afford it. Travel to a large city, often in another state, with 24-hour waiting periods required, mean a few days of hotel expenses added to the bills.

Doctors who are willing to provide these types of services should not be bullied, threatened or attacked - isn't bullying bad? How is it different when a religious person (or state govt) with a different opinion bullies medical professionals than when a teen does it to another teen?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hated women? Far from it. He loves women so much he married three of them! Also appointed them to high executive positions in his companies. Also hired one to run his (successful) presidential campaign- a milestone that the media is studiously ignoring for some reason.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

well, we all knew Trump hated women...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Are you suggesting that US citizens shouldn't be able to know which countries (some accounts say more than 25) their president has investments in and how that might affect foreign relations?

Not saying that at all.

And you can't seriously be saying showing college transcripts is equivalent to showing where all, both in the US and abroad, the president has investments.

The right were pounding Obama about it for a long time and now the left are doing the same with Trump's tax record. Obama didn't want to show his and that was important for the right and the Trump is not showing his, which is important for the left. At this point, it doesn't matter. Obama didn't want to give the right a bone and Trump is not going to give the left one, move on.

I think most Americans, maybe excluding his fellow billionaire elite who stand to get even bigly-er richer by supporting him and his blind-faith followers, care about conflict of interest.

I'm not so sure about that, I think only the haters and skeptics do.

Curious, though, that so many of Trump's blind-faithful considered the Clinton's perceived conflicts of interest as criminal. Are you saying Trump's conflicts of interest are of the good kind?

No, but Clinton lied under oath, Clinton tried to destroy key evidence. Clinton denied before a grand jury that she didn't do anything or had anything to do with loss emails or hidden servers, not the same thing. If Trump is being investigated by the FBI and has to testify, I will shut my mouth, until then, this is just another rabbit hole the left is trying to go in.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

I love the loaded language of the left: abortions are termed as "health care". Not so healthy for the baby in question, is it? The truth is that the US has far more liberal standards about abortion than most other modern countries, including Europe.

The feminists never ever make clear what exactly they want- they cloak their demands in sound bites and emotion. Do you want women to have the right to have abortions up to the moment of birth, with no strings attached? If so, then be honest about it. If not, at what point does an abortion change from health care to infanticide? Countries with unfettered abortion ironically see it used to practice gender selective terminations- see the distorted male/female ratios of countries like India and China. In those places, unrestricted access is used to get rid of inconvenient baby girls, hardly something that feminists should support.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

@bass Obama never showed his college transcripts either and life went on.

Are you suggesting that US citizens shouldn't be able to know which countries (some accounts say more than 25) their president has investments in and how that might affect foreign relations?

And you can't seriously be saying showing college transcripts is equivalent to showing where all, both in the US and abroad, the president has investments.

I think most Americans, maybe excluding his fellow billionaire elite who stand to get even bigly-er richer by supporting him and his blind-faith followers, care about conflict of interest.

Curious, though, that so many of Trump's blind-faithful considered the Clinton's perceived conflicts of interest as criminal. Are you saying Trump's conflicts of interest are of the good kind?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Maybe if Trump released his tax info like he promised the US taxpayers could learn a bit more why some foreign governments get aid and some don't.

I don't think anyone cares but liberals, Obama never showed his college transcripts either and life went on.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed a decree barring U.S. federal funding for

foreign NGOs

that support abortion, relaunching a battle that has long divided Americans.

Doesn't this mean that U.S. taxpayers no longer have to fund foreign abortions?

Shouldn't other countries, and their citizens, pay for their own abortions?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The decision to ban foreign aid to groups

I wonder how this will affect which countries the Trump administration decides to provide foreign aid to. Given that his businesses have received payments from foreign governments, it's all a bit worrying.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-trump-businesses-violate-constitution-140052298.html

Maybe if Trump released his tax info like he promised the US taxpayers could learn a bit more why some foreign governments get aid and some don't.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Oh, what an outright lie, they do, they just don't want the tax payer to foot the bill.

From the same party that promoted the $4,000,000,000,000 Iraq War...lol !

10 ( +12 / -2 )

The GOP scum care nothing for babies, and depending on their economic social status, nothing for moms either.

Oh, what an outright lie, they do, they just don't want the tax payer to foot the bill, if PP needs funding, then they should raise the money privately from US donors or ask Hollywood, they should be down with that. Let them put their money where their big mouths are.

Their policies to cut SNAP, CHIPS, Medicaid, Planned Parent Hood, Head Start, etc, are directly harmful to women and children. GOP concern for a child ends at birth.

As opposed to creating jobs in the private sector and getting people off the couch and out of the pocket of government dependency. Under Obama we have over 46 million on food stamps and we should continue on that path? No, time to cut the umbilical cord and ween the people off these programs as much as possible.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

The GOP scum care nothing for babies, and depending on their economic social status, nothing for moms either. Their policies to cut SNAP, CHIPS, Medicaid, Planned Parent Hood, Head Start, etc, are directly harmful to women and children. GOP concern for a child ends at birth.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

One could say this is just the foreign NGOs now to appease voters but women reproductive organs are not the propriety of the government...

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites