Trump administration rejects Democrat spending bill to restore foreign abortion money

[redleghunter]

Trump administration rejects Democrat spending bill to restore foreign abortion money

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 4, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Trump administration made clear it would not consider a Democrat spending bill to fully reopen the federal government, partially because it would also restore foreign aid to organizations that commit or promote abortions.

The federal government has been partially shut down since President Donald Trump rejected a government funding bill that didn’t include $5 billion to begin constructing the southern border wall he campaigned on. Despite widespread media talk of a “government shutdown,” most of the government was already funded and remains in operation.

Following her re-election as House Speaker Thursday, Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi announced that her party would be “offering the Senate Republican Appropriations [Committee] legislation to reopen the government later today.” The proposal consisted of one bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security until February 8 and another to fund federal departments until the end of September.

The legislation lacked the wall funding at the heart of the dispute, however, and would also repeal the Mexico City Policy (now called Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance) that Trump reinstated shortly after taking office and later expanded. In addition to making abortion-involved groups once again eligible for foreign aid, the Democrat plan would also give $37.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund, from which Trump withdrew in 2017 over its participation in China’s forced abortion regime.


More here:

Trump administration rejects Democrat spending bill to restore foreign abortion money

 

[usexpat97]

I don't support Trump.
I do support pro-choice.

And I wholeheartedly support rejecting this foreign abortion aid.

 

[JackRT]

The Mexico City Policy has defunded NGOs that provide birth control, prenatal and postnatal care in third world nations. Since these NGOs also provided abortion referrals, they were defunded. This has resulted in the closure of many of these clinics with the result that these women no longer have the maternal care they need. Babies are dying. The abortion rate has increased and since these are now back street abortions many of these desperate women have died leaving their families destitute. This misguided policy has actually made matters worse. Much worse.

 

[usexpat97]

$37.5 million sounds like an amount that could be raised charitably. Then you're not forcibly allocating taxpayer money from the hands of pro-lifers, and taking away THEIR choice.

 

[JackRT]

$37.5 million sounds like an amount that could be raised charitably. Then you're not forcibly allocating taxpayer money from the hands of pro-lifers, and taking away THEIR choice.

In a democratic society there are almost always groups that object to one or another government funding projects --- what about THEIR choice? Half or more of the federal budget goes to the military and there are tens of millions of people who object to that. What about THEIR choice?

 

[usexpat97]

What about THEIR choice?

I don't contest that.

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

If I may. Let's look at the facts and not create bogeyman arguments. This $37.5 million aid package is for many, many countries. It is money given to the United Nations population fund. The UNFPA does a lot more than, maybe, support China's 2 child policy and the abortions that such a policy provides.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), formerly the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, is a UN organization. The UNFPA says it "is the lead UN agency for delivering a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person's potential is fulfilled".[1] Their work involves the improvement of reproductive health; including creation of national strategies and protocols, and birth control by providing supplies and services. The organization has recently been known for its worldwide campaign against child marriage, obstetric fistula and female genital mutilation.

The UNFPA supports programs in more than 150 countries and areas spread across four geographic regions: Arab States and Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa. Around three quarters of the staff work in the field. It is a member of the United Nations Development Group and part of its Executive Committee.[2]

They also work to end female genitalia mutilation and teach and provide safe birth control methods. They do a lot of good work around the world. While they may support clinics that provide abortion, that support is no different than what we do here in the U.S. In the United States abortions are legal by choice of the parents, esp. the mother. The UNFPA categorically denies that they in any way support government child limitation policies such as in China.

So, I can certainly understand that there are some who want to make abortions illegal and for them I would say, "Write your legislators and get the laws changed here first before condemning other nations with the same policies and laws as we have." Isn't it just a bit hypocritical to point our fingers at other nations and condemn them for offering abortions by choice when we have the same practice right here under our own noses?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[EpiscipalMe]

This is not US money going to pay for abortions. It is a restriction on US money going for any service to any entity that even discusses abortions. And, Trump expanded the policies application so even more potential recipients are affected.

I am fine with restriction US money from paying for abortions and restricting individual organizations (like the one in China) from receiving funding, but this policy overall has disastrous effects on health around the world and should be repealed.

How Trump's 'Global Gag Rule' Is Affecting Women's Health

 

[usexpat97]

So, I can certainly understand that there are some who want to make abortions illegal...

There's a big difference between wanting to make it illegal for others vs. taking their tax dollars and funding someone else's abortion, directly defying their convictions against it. Let alone taking American tax money, sending it overseas for free, and supporting a foreign national's abortion.

 

[miamited]

There's a big difference between wanting to make it illegal for others vs. taking their tax dollars and funding someone else's abortion, directly defying their convictions against it. Let alone taking American tax money, sending it overseas for free, and supporting a foreign national's abortion.

Hi usexpat,

Yes, you're correct that the mechanics of giving the money is different than laws for or against abortion, but...

The reasoning behind withholding the money is my point. It seems to be something new or changed based on our President's position on abortion. I just find it fairly laughable that a man who's been married three times; who we know has had extramarital relations esp. when jumping from one wife to the next; who seems to have no problem telling everyone that his 'alternative facts' are truth; and from all indications from his charitable foundation doesn't seem to have any qualms with stealing and cheating, telling us that he draws the line at abortion.

As if God somehow sees those who have an abortion as 'worse' sinners than the rest of us. That God understands why President Trump 'had' to have sexual relations with other women during his marriage and had to lie and steal and have basically no control over his tongue and all of that's ok with him, but abortion!!!! Oh my, that's just such a much more egregious sin. Everybody's going to be saved except those who have had abortions.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that President Trump even acknowledges that abortion is a bad thing is because he knows that's what his base wants him to promote. Just as with immigration, we know for a fact that some of President Trump's businesses have used illegals and he has never cared enough about illegal immigration to actually go out and see to it that none of his own businesses turn down illegals for work. No one can seem to find any company directives that would expressly prohibit the hiring of illegal workers. But he knowsw that his base, his whole support system is that sector of our society that has gone to arms over illegal immigration and I imagine even those who are just against immigration, period.

President Trump is not particularly smart in subject knowledge of any particular kind, but he understands human nature and understands well how to motivate through fear and intimidation. He's a ruthless and cunning man. I'll certainly give him glorious accolades in that department.

Finally, the basic problem of governance that I see with President Trump's administration is that he believes it perfectly acceptable to overrule our system of governance to get what he's after. He decried the legislative 60% approval needed to get his health bill changes made. Trying to get Congress to adopt special rules for his 'special' laws. Now he wants to overturn those same checks and balances that have always been the safety net of our government against totalitarian dictatorship of the presidency to get his wall built.

Look the rule of law in the United States has always been that laws must be fairly debated and passed by a 60% margin of approval. Other than in some very special cases throughout history that has just always been the way our governance was established. Now we have a leader who says that's not good enough!! Why is that not good enough? Because he can't seem to win over the nation to his way of thinking because of those 'stupid' laws. Oh, but that's why those checks and balances exist. DUH~!!

Sadly, he has convinced many Americans that we should change our constitutional directives on these matter and our long established rules of law on these matters and I'm afraid that's going to lead us into some pretty dangerous territory. If we allow President Trump to make these changes to get his way, like declaring that he needs to declare these times as times of a 'national emergency', and basically just because there seems to be a lot of noise across the nation concerning some of these issues, is that what future presidents will do. Are we ok that future presidents will be able to sit in the oval office and every time a particular president thinks that an issue might have serious national consequences decree that we are in a 'national emergency' which then gives them the power to just run roughshod over everyone all of our elected officials and the constitution and the rule of law? Is that really what we're prepared to accept for out future governance?

President Trump needs to understand that the United States of America has some specific and particular ways in which it is governed and his job, along with protecting the citizenry, is to also work within the framework of the form of governance that is the established form of governance of the United States of Trump?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

This is "a man who would be king" and at some point Congress will have to realize that and deal with it. I foresee a serious power struggle that could devolve into violence. This is what always happens when the rule of law is subverted or ignored.

 

[usexpat97]

Like I said, I don't support Trump. Obviously his position on abortion is laughable. I know of one-issue voters who voted for Trump on abortion alone, and ostriched themselves on every other issue.

But unless this particular earmarking of funds has been completely misrepresented as well, I wholeheartedly support not approving it. I wouldn't shut down the government over it, but that is already happening.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Like I said, I don't support Trump. Obviously his position on abortion is laughable. I know of one-issue voters who voted for Trump on abortion alone, and ostriched themselves on every other issue.

But unless this particular earmarking of funds has been completely misrepresented as well, I wholeheartedly support not approving it. I wouldn't shut down the government over it, but that is already happening.

Have you read about the far reaching consequences of the rule, beyond just stopping abortions?

It prohibits funding to any international organization that performs abortions, advocates for "liberalization" or abortions, or even talks to patients about abortions. And this is not just limiting money for abortions or even family planning services - it means these agencies cannot get any money for anything from most sources of US government aid - including infectious disease management (vaccinations, HIV, TB, malaria, etc). Trump dramatically increased the grant mechanisms affected:

"Under previous Republican administrations, the restrictions in the Mexico City Policy applied specifically to US family planning funds, approximately US$575 million.

Trump’s policy extends restrictions to an estimated $8.8 billion in US global health assistance, including funding support for family planning and reproductive health, maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS—including The President’s Plan for Emergency Relief for AIDS (PEPFAR),[2]prevention and treatment of tuberculosis, malaria (including the President’s Malaria Initiative), infectious diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and even to water, sanitation, and hygiene programs.[3]"

Trump's 'Mexico City Policy' or 'Global Gag Rule'

The last time the global gag rule was re-enacted (under GW Bush - indicated by dotted line on this graph), abortion rates went up in countries most affected:



WHO | United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa

So, not only is the global gag rule, especially as enacted by Trump, having a detrimental effect on global health beyond just pregnancy, but evidence suggests that it does not have the intended effect of limiting abortions.

 

[redleghunter]

Like I said, I don't support Trump. Obviously his position on abortion is laughable.

Do you even know what it is?

 

[redleghunter]

Have you read about the far reaching consequences of the rule, beyond just stopping abortions?

It prohibits funding to any international organization that performs abortions, advocates for "liberalization" or abortions, or even talks to patients about abortions. And this is not just limiting money for abortions or even family planning services - it means these agencies cannot get any money for anything from most sources of US government aid - including infectious disease management (vaccinations, HIV, TB, malaria, etc). Trump dramatically increased the grant mechanisms affected:

"Under previous Republican administrations, the restrictions in the Mexico City Policy applied specifically to US family planning funds, approximately US$575 million.

Trump’s policy extends restrictions to an estimated $8.8 billion in US global health assistance, including funding support for family planning and reproductive health, maternal and child health, nutrition, HIV/AIDS—including The President’s Plan for Emergency Relief for AIDS (PEPFAR),[2]prevention and treatment of tuberculosis, malaria (including the President’s Malaria Initiative), infectious diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and even to water, sanitation, and hygiene programs.[3]"

Trump's 'Mexico City Policy' or 'Global Gag Rule'

The last time the global gag rule was re-enacted (under GW Bush - indicated by dotted line on this graph), abortion rates went up in countries most affected:

View attachment 248540

WHO | United States aid policy and induced abortion in sub-Saharan Africa

So, not only is the global gag rule, especially as enacted by Trump, having a detrimental effect on global health beyond just pregnancy, but evidence suggests that it does not have the intended effect of limiting abortions.

It sounds like if these organizations stop abortions on demand they get the money flowing again. Hope they all come to their senses.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

It sounds like if these organizations stop abortions on demand they get the money flowing again. Hope they all come to their senses.

Much like in the US, restricting access to safe abortion is developing countries does not reduce abortion rates, in leads people to seek unsafe abortions:
“During 2010–2014, an average of about one in four abortions in Africa were safe. Of those that were unsafe, the majority fell into the least-safe category.”

In addition, who says these places offer “abortion on demand”:

“Of the world’s 1.64 billion women of reproductive age, 6% live where abortion is banned outright, and 37% live where it is allowed without restriction as to reason. Most women live in countries with laws that fall between these two extremes.”

And, restricting abortion through legal means does not correlate with reducing abortion rates:

“Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.”

Abortion in Africa

More info:
Preventing unsafe abortion

As much as conservatives love to legislate morality, the best way to limit abortions is to provide access to family planning services and education.

Which policies lead to less abortion? The ACA, state law & The Supreme Court | Public Health

Add to this that places impacted most by the global gag rule had an increase in abortion rates.

So, limiting access to legal abortions has no effect on abortion rates (people get illegal abortions instead). However, in order to try an limit access to legal abortions (which has no effect on abortion rates), the global gag rule limits access to family planning services (which increases abortion rates) and limits access to other health services (HIV, TB, malaria, vaccinations, nutrition, etc).

 

[DaDad]

It seems to me that GOD is LIFE. His creation was designed for eternal LIFE, and it wasn't until sin was introduced that DEATH appeared. So if the essence of GOD is LIFE, and everything else is secondary.

But today we parse whether the mortality rate should be ~101% (my estimate), or ~103% (my estimate) depending upon whether abortion is legal or illegal. But even more accurate, it would seem that if abortion were illegal, the mortality rate might easily drop to ~40% (my estimate), or even lower.

Of course we're told to ignore that statistics of the murdered child, -- but that would be dishonest.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[EpiscipalMe]

It seems to me that GOD is LIFE. His creation was designed for eternal LIFE, and it wasn't until sin was introduced that DEATH appeared. So if the essence of GOD is LIFE, and everything else is secondary.

But today we parse whether the mortality rate should be ~101% (my estimate), or ~103% (my estimate) depending upon whether abortion is legal or illegal. But even more accurate, it would seem that if abortion were illegal, the mortality rate might easily drop to ~40% (my estimate), or even lower.

Of course we're told to ignore that statistics of the murdered child, -- but that would be dishonest.

Thanks,
DaDad

You are right - eliminating abortion would save lives. So now the question is, how to do that. Data shows that legal restrictions like the global gag rule decrease legal abortion but increase illegal abortion so that the abortion rate does not change. The best way to reduce abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies through family planning services. However, a side effect of the global gag rule is a decrease in these services leading to an increase in abortion rates.

This is all supported by the links and graphs I posted above.

 

[usexpat97]

Third world countries are free to decide whether mothers have access to abortions. Contrary to how the U.S. acts most of the time, they are--after all--sovereign countries. Providing access at the expense of the American taxpayer, though--different issue.

 

[DaDad]

You are right - eliminating abortion would save lives.

I never said "eliminating abortion", I merely said if abortion were illegal.

Perhaps the solution for a "perfect world" will have to wait until the New Jerusalem. And until then, if someone wants to murder someone, that they start with themselves rather than an innocent child.

Thanks,
DaDad