BREAKING: Trump Administration Slashes $60 Million Dollars from Planned Parenthood
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Promises made, promises kept.
The Trump administration just announced a large amount of money will be taken away from the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, as promised.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced its final ruling to cut Title X funding from any organization that provides or refers patients for abortions.
Title X is the federal program that provides birth control and other “reproductive services.” This proposal significantly changes that.
So long to $60,000,000 of American tax dollars annually sent to Planned Parenthood.
“Under the previous rules, Title X services and abortions could “co-locate” in the same center, as long as the abortions were privately funded. Now, the money will be redirected to Women’s Qualified Health Centers that are not involved in abortions, which dramatically outnumber Planned Parenthood locations across the United States,” Live Action reports.
The official press release from (HHS) states:
“The final rule ensures compliance with statutory program integrity provisions governing the program and, in particular, the statutory prohibition on funding programs where abortion is a method of family planning. The final rule amends the Title X regulation, which had not been substantially updated in nearly two decades, and makes notable improvements designed to increase the number of patients served and improve the quality of their care.”
The pro-life community thanks President Trump and his administration for keeping their promise to defund Planned Parenthood:
“This is the kind of policy change that Millennials, the nation’s largest voting bloc, support. Healthcare dollars should fund real, full-service medical care, not abortion vendors.” – Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America “We thank President Trump for taking decisive action to disentangle taxpayers from the big abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood.” – Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser
This is a major win for the Trump administration, but more importantly innocent babies.
Tags
Who is online
237 visitors
Christian Sharia Law is coming. These funds will be redirected to faith-based groups who promote idiotic ideas which have been proven to increase pregnancies and STDs - abstinence only, and the rhythm method. This will also make it harder for women to get referrals for cancer screenings and even basic health care. The religious fanatics' war on women takes another step forward.
These funds ARE NOT allowed to fund abortion, despite the screeches of the zealots who want big government and want to eliminate people's rights.
People with sexual hangups should stay out of other people's beds. And out of our government.
Abortion giant, my ass. Only 3% of the money PP spends is on abortion - and NONE of that uses tax dollars.
Not getting pregnant is an amazing way of family planning. Get ready for more abortions, folks. That's what this will lead to. If you really want to reduce abortions, you support PP, who provides education on birth control, and actual birth control, so that fewer unplanned pregnancies exist. But for the fundies, women who enjoy sex when it isn't for procreation deserve to be punished.
Another bullshit policy by someone who has never read their Bible. Song of Songs, anyone?
Funny, those that actually practice abstinence have the only 100% guarantee to not get STDs or pregnant. It is those that fail to follow through with their vow to be abstinent that get pregnant or an STD, since abstinence requires a person to NOT DO what they promise NOT TO DO.
Of course only people who deny one of the most basic of human drives (I believe it ranks just after food and shelter) won't get pregnant or get STDs. The point is that abstinence-only sex ed has been proven not only to NOT decrease the number of teens having sex, but to increase teen pregnancy and STDs.
I wasn't even talking about abstinence vows, which are ridiculous. Sex is a natural drive and attempts to demonize it and make it evil are ridiculous. Don't even get me started on that incestuous-sounding daddy-daughter marriage thing.
No, it is not. Stop trying to push your sexual hangups onto everyone else.
Ever had a threesome, btw? Or a little S&M?
You're welcome to live your life by those rules. Expecting others to live their lives by your religious rules is unamerican.
You have an illogical argument there. How does the program actually affect the rate of pregnancy and STDs, it DOESN'T. It teaches people that they should save themselves for someone special. Just because they might think that someone is special and fail to hold up their end of the promise doesn't mean that they shouldn't face the consequences. Every time you have sex, you should be prepared for getting STDs or getting someone or becoming pregnant. Abstinence is not about stopping people having sex completely, it is about waiting to be in a fully committed relationship first. Just because you want teenage girls to jump into bed immediately on the first date does not mean that they should. And, frankly, any sort of Abstinence program should be teaching and focusing on the fact people should wait until they are ready for both children and marriage.
It ignores the fact that most people don't practice abstinence until marriage. And in the case of abstinence-only programs, when kids do what kids are going to do, they haven't been taught how to protect themselves from STIs and pregnancy.
Abstinence is ideal as far as pregnancy and STI prevention. It is also unrealistic in the long term, so other methods of protection need to be taught. Also, not every married couple wants to or should have one baby after another, so those same methods can be used after the wedding.
Is that a direct quote of katrix's words?
Teaching abstinence has failed, many times over.
So, you're saying that our history from the Middle Ages to the 1960s was full of everyone having sex just for fun? You see it wasn't until the 1960s and the "Free Love" movement that having sex out of wedlock was accepted in the culture.
Yeah, just ask Bristol Palin how preaching abstinence worked for herself.
And the late 60's at that!
Ya, the pigs of Woodstock
Teaching Driver's Ed has failed many times over. Kids still drive like maniacs and die in car crashes, yet I don't see you objecting to that.
The idea of abstinence died when the pill became available
They had sex, sometimes for procreation and sometimes just for fun, and risked pregnancy every time. Do you think every sexual encounter before the invention of the condom was with the intention of procreation? BTW - attempts at contraception aren't exactly new - they're thousands of years old. Effective, safe methods of contraception are new.
And do you seriously think that premarital sex is a new thing? Not hardly. It wasn't something one necessarily advertised, but it was far from unheard of. In the Middle Ages, it was the rule rather than the exception that a nobleman would have a wife and one or more mistresses.
Generally speaking, for the masses, sex before marriage has been prohibited for women, but men - not so much.
Again, did you quote katrix directly?
Sex has been going on since the beginning of time. Telling people to wait will not stop people.
Making it dirty just pushes it underground.
Haha.
How anyone would take abstinence advice from a woman that had several children from different men...
How many mistresses did Henry VIII have, was he having sex for procreation, I don't think so since the children would be bastards. That's one example of a king, go back in history, most kings had mistresses.
Is teaching drivers ed the only way that people learn? I was taught with various methods. Instruction, a simulator and hands on experience. When I was ten my father would let me sit on his lap and drive up and down the driveway.
Teaching abstinence only is just that. Only teaching one way as the correct way. Not teaching all options.
The idea was never viable to begin with.
King Louis XIV had 9 mistresses.
He took a series of mistresses, both official and unofficial. Among the better documented are Louise de La Vallière (with whom he had 5 children; 1661–67), Bonne de Pons d'Heudicourt (1665), Catherine Charlotte de Gramont (1665), Françoise-Athénaïs, Marquise de Montespan (with whom he had 7 children; 1667–80), Anne de Rohan-Chabot (1669–75), Claude de Vin des Œillets (1 child born in 1676), Isabelle de Ludres (1675–78), and Marie Angélique de Scorailles (1679–81), who died at age 19 in childbirth. Through these liaisons, he produced numerous illegitimate children, most of whom he married to members of cadet branches of the royal family .
So don't hand us that bullshit about sex out of wedlock
Lousy analogy. Teaching abstinence only would be like telling kids that they shouldn't drive, and also neglecting to tell them where the brake pedal is, or to wear their seatbelts, or NOT to drive like maniacs.
The idea of abstinence? It was to some extent. Iv'e lived to be 67 and I can remember a time when promiscuity was not mainstream. That is really what we are talking about here.
Do you think that one must be promiscuous to risk an unwanted pregnancy or STI?
We really need better sex ed.
and caused lack of trust and confidence in those teaching it
People being prudes and not talking about sex doesn't mean that abstinence was more widespread.
Mae West used sexuality in old films.
Actually, a king having children by a mistress often wasn't a big deal. They were often well provided for, and given noble titles. Their last names would often reflect their lineage - "Fitz" was a prefix for non-marital son of a king. "Fitzwilliam", "Fitzroy", etc.
No. Promiscuity is what it is. The pill just made it so much easier
We really need better sex ed.
Oh, ya, now we do
It was. Iv'e lived long enough to see it from all angles. There was always talk about it.
Mae West used sexuality in old films.
Lol, and that was considered exciting way back then!
The Pill does nothing to prevent STIs. A good sex ed program would tell you that.
We always did. Or do you think it was a good thing for most of us to be ignorant about an activity in which most of us participate?
Haha.
Even back in the day sex happened. They use to ship off young women to hide pregnancies and to avoid their so called shame.
Nothing stops it from happening and nothing ever will.
Nope, It's main function is for sex without pregnancy. A huge societal change with good and bad results.
We always did. Or do you think it was a good thing for most of us to be ignorant about an activity in which most of us participate?
I think there should have been something in between total innocence and the total decline of our society today. I will grant you that if you want sex, there really isn't much problem finding a partner. It's funny, to think of dating a woman before having sex. There was romance once. Now it's the woman who wants to go right to it. Although I love hearing "what do you want me to wear", I miss the chase!
So, you're saying that our history from the Middle Ages to the 1960s was full of everyone having sex just for fun?
Yes.
You see it wasn't until the 1960s and the "Free Love" movement that having sex out of wedlock was accepted in the culture.
A patently absurd statement.
I don't. I think it is nice (and flattering) to be chased.
Though sometimes it can be a little disconcerting.
How about handing them out at the school nurses office.
Yeah....but.....they were God fearing people who preached their holiness to any ear that would listen. Like many other religious zealots, they preach how others should life their lives, but, don't apply the same rules to their own life.
Ah, I see the problem. That attitude was once the privilege of men. Terrible to have to share it with women.
You assume too much. Did I confirm your bias?
If you say so. Your complaint that "it's the woman who wants to go right to it" seems fairly biased to me. I would say that "couples want to go right to it" would be unbiased.
You assumed that was a complaint. I was simply contrasting the time when we dinned women with today. The fact that you think that's biased tells me you may be a feminist?
Yes, your whole post was a lament about promiscuity and the decline of society and romance.
Except for that sentence.
Seems likely.
That your'e a feminist?
You really do like the play the label game on others don't you? Except when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
Seems like some other elephants in the room I know.
Then why do you state such totally unjustifiable comments?
Yes, I believe in legal and social equality for women.
I really have to wonder about people who don't, or who think that it's an insult.
Or think you don't like men.
Have a good night
Yes, I also have to wonder about people who can't tell the difference between feminism and misandry.
Of course, some equate the two on purpose, to vilify women who point out bias against women. It's a dishonest tactic, but one that's often used.
And one usually used by men who dislike women. Or who think that women belong "in their place" as chattel. That women should not be free thinkers and have no rights to their own bodies.
Some men accuse women of being Feminists to cover up their own misogyny. I see it practiced here on this site quite often by some here who seem to think it makes them look like real men, when it fact, it shows just how small they really are and much they fear women.
Because a real man does not need to use such excuses to prove their manhood. They are willing to accept women and their right to their own bodies. That is the show of a real man.
" still supposed to be reserved for a marriage relationship"
Why? Who said that and why do they tell get to everybody what they can and can not do?
ie. Dr. Laura.
"It's main function is for sex without pregnancy. A huge societal change with good and bad results"
I don't see any bad results in that
.
Exhibit 1a
I left out the old English, (except for the first example), but the link provided will let you read it if you wish.
I remember reading "The Canterbury Tales" in the 60's, (modern English version), and laughing out loud at the bawdy nature of the tails going around in the middle ages.
Stupid to think that folk haven't been fooling around since ... well since all our favorit nerves got centered in our sex organs.
Face it, if Mother Nature hadn't wanted humans to be able to constantly pursue sexual enjoyment she'd would have made our sex lives more painful, like Cats or Mantises, and we would only be having sex when we were biologically compeld to do so for procreational reasons.
there isn't romance anymore ? there's only "women who wants to go right to it" ? gee... i wonder what planet you are living on.. i see both romance and sex in today's society - just as it's always been and always will be. why ? because we are humans - some humans crave romance and some crave sex and some crave isolationism etc.... that is how it's always been and how it always will be. (and for the record, your comment can easily be interpreted that you are upset that women are taking control of their own sexual lives and aren't dependent upon men making first moves while trying to play coy)
Obviously, you don't like men /s
i know, right ? and yet, i was told that only "liberals" are the ones that try to silent opposing viewpoints by calling names or labeling people like "That your'e a feminist?" (@2.1.43)
was i lied to again by the conservative minded ?
It is the prime directive for all life forms to survive and reproduce. Period.
There is nothing special about human sex versus any acts of copulation of any of the other so called 'higher organisms' to perpetuate their existence.
Now, you might be able to make a case for feelings like love and sorrow which is pretty much evident among the "higher" mammals, not so much among reptiles and insects.
Judging by how many other individual lives of different species are killed for food, sport, convenience or business profits on an annual global basis by your God's special
creations, you should start by boycotting eggs and chicken, not encouraging overpopulation by outlawing human abortions.
It just isn't logical.
Why is prostitution know as the oldest profession Tom?
I can't even. Reading that tripe highlights exactly what this is all about. Its about slut shaming women who behave normally (and apparently have different standards than the 'studs' who cause unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. You want christian sharia. Should we expect the Basij next?
We should require all men to submit their DNA to a national database, so those who think it's not their problem will have to face the same consequences that women do.
Sex for fun? Deal with it. It's apparently normal for men to give in to their urges .. but if women do the same, they're immoral and irresponsible. We're not supposed to have the same normal urges as men do, and if we do, we're sluts and deserve the consequences. As to any children we are forced to bear. If we die in childbirth, so what .. we deserve it.
"You" haven't paid for a abortion since the '70s, a inconvenient fact that people on the right feel free to ignore.
And some out of wedlock. Yet, she pretended to be oh so pious and God fearing. Even thinking she is qualified to preach to others how they should live their life.
I don't know if this comment demonstrates more ignorance or hysteria. Tough call.
We live in a country whose government will force small businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Vermont is about to pass an abortion bill with zero limitations. One can go on and on with the examples, yet in defiance of reason, facts and common sense, the left continuously screams about theocracy being "right around the corner." I know the left thrives on scaring voters, but I refuse to believe anyone is dumb enough to believe that America in 2019 is on the verge of turning into a christian theocracy. Anyone who's paid any attention to the country the last 50 years could only laugh at that.
It's like claiming the WOBBLIES are going to take over the country at any minute. It's street corner loony crazy.
Open your eyes. America is father from being a "Christian theocracy" (I won't even dignify something as illiterate as "Christian sharia" ) then it has been at any point in it's history. Let's put a stop with the insane fear mongering and deal with reality please.
It was clearly an exaggeration ... for religious fanatics (which you do not appear to be), they screech about Muslims trying to put their religious beliefs into our laws, while completely ignoring the hypocrisy of them thinking it's just fine for them to do the exact same thing.
And nobody was forcing anyone to participate in a gay marriage ceremonies. That's either ignorant, hysterical, or both.
It's not hysteria or ignorance, its an understanding and knowledge of how women are subjugated and controlled through their fertility and have been throughout history. By MEN. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Iran's revolution and the resulting suppression of women (first and foremost), brush up instead of seeing it through your eyes only. As a woman who watched our rights come and subsequent attempts over the years to take them away, this is a BFD. And the sanctimonious dismissal of our rights and choices (by men who don't know shit about women, I might add) are insulting and expected. The ignorance is on your side. Planned Parenthood has avoided more abortions than any other health organization because that is their main goal, PLANNED parenthood. They don't slut shame and try to make it harder and more expensive for women to avoid pregnancy. Nor do they expect a different standard for female behavior than male behavior. What price does a man pay in all this again?
"These funds will be redirected to faith-based groups"
I don't trust them with proper use of funds and don't want them to be spending my tax money
Where do these people come up with these lies?
Only fundie nutjobs would support this.
If trump gets voted back into office, the people deserve whatever comes.
Fetus adoration. Find it odd that a president of 'checkered sexual history' would prioritize Choice as the target.
Ah well. Promises Made--Promises Kept. The wall and pregnancy termination?
Costs, In our local paper School costs were reported at over $12,000 per student a year, K-12 that's over $160,000 and they say they need more.
Money for all Planned Parenthood services seems like a good investment.
Overpopulation is getting worse and it multiplies most other problems. Politicians and Preachers don't want to talk about this
Politicians need troops to enforce their will and tax payers to pay for everything, and the best way to get more members of a church is to have their members have many children and raise them in the church.