The Trump Administration Will Soon Prohibit Abortion Services At Federally Funded Clinics.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: carewemust

But you want to limit women's freedom of choice.
To enslave women.

Do we?

Did anyone say the woman could not have an abortion? No. We only said *we* as taxpayers should not be obligated to pay for it if she decides to.

My goodness. I guess since the government isn't paying for my next car, you want to limit my freedom of movement and right to go where I choose too? Yes?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


I was referring to this part:

the Trump administration is reportedly planning to resurrect a Reagan-era rule banning federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women.

THAT is a violation of 1st Amendment, don't you agree?

Just in case...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And?

Federally funded schools can't allow any prayer either.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


I was referring to this part:

the Trump administration is reportedly planning to resurrect a Reagan-era rule banning federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women.

THAT is a violation of 1st Amendment, don't you agree?

Just in case...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This part is what i was responding to.

It wasn't included in the quote.

the Trump administration is reportedly planning to resurrect a Reagan-era rulebanning federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women.

I’m sure that’s as true and accurate as “all immigrants are animals”

“ all mexicans are rapists”

And the Muslim travel ban

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus


I was referring to this part:

the Trump administration is reportedly planning to resurrect a Reagan-era rule banning federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women.

THAT is a violation of 1st Amendment, don't you agree?

Just in case...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

where is the law stating the federal government has to fund any clinic that offers these services?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I just realized something else. Most pharmacies receive federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid. Most pharmacies also stock and dispense abortifacients. So are the elderly and poor no longer going to be able to afford their drugs?

The law isn't about pharmacies, it's about clinics referring women to get abortions.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I just realized something else. Most pharmacies receive federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid. Most pharmacies also stock and dispense abortifacients. So are the elderly and poor no longer going to be able to afford their drugs?

The law isn't about pharmacies, it's about clinics referring women to get abortions.

A woman should have the right to information and referrals.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

hmmm.... that university hospital near my hometown that I mentioned, it operates a family planning clinic on-site. it also offers abortion services.
so, let's say that the hospital chooses not to stop offering the abortion services...
does it lose the reimbursements from medicaid for every thing, ya know like testing to find out why kids are having siezures, sweat tests used to diagnose cycstic fibrosis, the cancer treatments, ect, ect, ect??

either way, I think it's a crappy thing to do really, based on so called facts that aren't factual...
since the abortions being funded by federal funds are those that are done for valid medical reasons or in cases of rape and incest.
but it would really be disasterous if they were to pull the reimbursements from major hospitals for such important medical care...
and yes, it would pretty much effectively remove the choice from women, since it would effectively force medical care providers to opt not to provide abortions... unless of course, they opt to just not treat the poor.

reading some of the articles, it's quite possible that this only concerns the title x funds, which will leave some of yous rather disappointed since planned parenthood would still be getting a sizable amount of money through the medicaid/medicare program.. but at least not as disappointed as you would be if you were relying on a medicaid card to help you pay for the testing to find out why your kid was having seizures on a regular basis I am sure!!!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

where is the law stating the federal government has to fund any clinic that offers these services?

Offers what services? A frank and honest discussion with a patient about their concerns and choices?

The bottom line is, the federal government can't control or censor free speech, in this case, the individual clinic workers' free speech.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And?

Federally funded schools can't allow any prayer either.

Students, as well as teachers are not prohibited from praying at school. Public schools are not allowed to force religion on their students, by forcing them to pray to Jesus, for example, thanks to the 1st Amendment.

The left always talks about "unwanted babies" that need to be adopted.'

The opposite is the case. In the United States, there is a long line of (conservative) wannabe parents. Those with the most money, er, "most stable home environment" go to the front of the line.

it will cost about $20,000 to adopt a child from a developing country who is being sold by the government because they need surgeries not available outside the USA.

A US born infant, minority and with major medical crisis, will run you around $100,000.

It's basically a quarter of a million to adopt a white/anglo US. female with only moderate medical issues.


To secure a child, you'll need to pay for lawyers, plus all the costs to the mother for healthcare, plus usually $20,000 to $60,000. There are professional "birth mothers" who derive all their income from this. no kidding. Anonymous adoptions are illegal now in Texas, and you can identify these women in the paperwork. Many have adopted out 4+ children. But no one complains because they are desperate to adopt.


Most of the US adoptive parents are religious and conservative. In fact, go to any conservative "mega church" and you will see a large number of minority children, all with anglo parents. The children are frequently from China. They used to be from Russia, but Putin ended the providing of babies to the US because he though it made Russia look like a 3rd world snap-hole....

It is becoming true that conservative churches are more and more ethnically diverse; in large part because conservative parents are willing to raise a minority/adopted child.

a reply to: tovenar

Where does your info come from? Are you getting it from a religious based site?

Are you referring mostly to babies? Unfortunately, there are "baby mills" in other countries.

Surrogates are nothing new.

There are incentives & subsidies for adopting older & minority children.

Something needs to change to make it easier to adopt in the USA.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: tovenar

Where does your info come from? Are you getting it from a religious based site?

Watching couples in my church try to adopt babies & children. I confess I googled several news stories and adoption agencies before posting to make sure it wasn't merely my personal/biased anecdotes. I think included was a huff post piece during Romneys campaign that was talking about the left mockery of the Romney tribe adopting a minority child. The huff post piece was pointing out that conservative minority adoptions were even with liberals, but conservatives were more likely to live in a household with a minority adopts (not an artifact of the survey method, IIRC).

Are you referring mostly to babies? Unfortunately, there are "baby mills" in other countries.

No. I watched acquaintances who couldn't get ANY baby. (2016). They adopted a Chinese 4 year old male, after paying for 1heart surgery & 2 intestinal surgeries.

Something needs to change to make it easier to adopt in the USA.

Agreed. Rt now a function of quality home PLUS 10s of thousands in fees. A lot of assumptions tho, that rich ppl are adopting from bad motives. Romney example again.

a reply to: carewemust

Good good good. PP needs to wean itself from the Federal Teat. Let the Kommen foundation ET AL, cover the difference. That way they can continue their important mission without the ongoing threat from the religious nuts.