Trump moves to ban federally funded clinics from abortion referrals

The Hill

Family planning clinics that refer patients for abortions or share locations or finances with abortion providers will be ineligible for funding through a decades-old federal family planning program, the Trump administration announced Tuesday.

The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled proposed regulations that would reshape Title X — the federal government's only program solely dedicated to family planning services for low-income women and men.

President Trump is expected to tout the proposed restrictions Tuesday evening during his speech at an annual fundraising gala for the Susan B. Anthony List, a national anti-abortion group based in Washington. Administrative officials also briefed anti-abortion groups on the proposed regulations late last week.

The long-expected restrictions on the Title X grant program were advocated for years by anti-abortion groups and other conservatives, who view the changes as a way to cut federal dollars going to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars in funds each year from the $286 million program. The organization indicated last week it would no longer seek funding under the program if the restrictions were put into place.

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said the new rule took a "scorched earth" approach to banning abortion that would limit access to other critical healthcare services.

“With this rule, this administration is trying to instruct doctors about what they can or cannot say to their patients. That should alarm anyone who ever wanted to know the facts about their own healthcare or feel the doctor-patient relationship is sacred and should be protected," she said. “The anti-choice movement knows that knowledge is power, which is why they love this rule and its attack on a woman’s right to understand her full range of options when it comes to an unintended pregnancy. Voters in this country will certainly remember this callous action in November and for a long time to come.”

Title X funds organizations offering family planning services, such as birth control and pregnancy tests, to low-income women and men, but has long been criticized by conservatives for its relationship with Planned Parenthood and its treatment of abortion.

While the use of federal funds for abortions is prohibited under Title X and other programs, anti-abortion groups have long argued that money is fungible and can still indirectly support the procedure if it goes to groups like Planned Parenthood.

Seeking to curb the flow of federal dollars to abortion clinics, former President Ronald Reagan issued similar restrictions on the Title X program in the 1980s. While the regulations were later upheld by the Supreme Court, due to the lengthy legal battle the regulations never went into effect.

The regulations announced by Trump on Tuesday are essentially a resurgence of those restrictions, with minor changes.

While both regulations prevented family planning clinics from referring patients for abortions and required them to have physical and financial separation from abortion clinics, the Reagan-era regulations also prevented the family planning clinics from even discussing abortion with their patients. That language has been left out of the restrictions unveiled by the Trump administration.

Still, advocates point to other measures under the Trump proposal — including one that drops a requirement that Title X clinics tell patients that abortion is an option — as a huge win for anti-abortion groups.

Under the current program, clinics must counsel patients on their options after receiving a positive pregnancy test, which includes abortion, adoption or keeping the baby.

Dropping the requirement that clinics list abortion as an option could encourage faith-based organizations to participate in the program. Such groups have previously avoided participating in the program out of fear that they would be seen as encouraging or promoting abortions.

HHS said the proposed changes ensure "Title X health providers ... are not required to choose between the health of their patients and their own consciences."

The restrictions are just the latest anti-abortion issue tackled by Trump, whom advocates often describe as the most "pro-life president in history."

In his year and a half in office, Trump has rescinded Obama-era guidance that sought to protect Planned Parenthood from defunding efforts and reinstated a policy that bans the use of federal funds for foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide or promote abortions.

However, Trump's presidency hasn't been without setbacks for anti-abortion groups, mostly due to the makeup of the Senate.

A ban on 20-week abortions and Planned Parenthood defunding have both passed the House, but failed to pass the Senate, where Republicans have a slim majority.

Damn it all! Things like this are why #TheResistance protests. Are we really just supposed to take it?

#TheResistance in Congress act like #TheAssistance.

Abortion is murder.

Should be outlawed.

And the war on women continues.

I like how it's generally men deciding what to do with women's bodies. Maybe we just let all the women vote on it...

I mean, seriously. Imagine if a bunch of women passed a law saying men couldn't get vasectomies.

For the majority of abortions, it's just women(and men) not being responsible. Even if a condom broke or whatever the excuse is, go to any pharmacy and get a plan B if you're worried about pregnancy. Or if you're sexually active, why not get on one of the multiple birth control methods? I'm not blaming women, but it is their body... Not referring to rape here... There is no reason in modern times unwanted pregnancy should occur. If you have unprotected sex, there's a chance you'll get pregnant. Don't rely on men.... Take care of your own bodies ladies! No one wants to go through an abortion!

@mrbojangles25: You're acting like women are stupid and don't know how they get pregnant. I wish it wer women signing it... But does it really matter if it's a bunch of men or a bunch of women? Women can and should take care of their bodies in a proactive way, not a reactive way. Rape aside, abortion because it's convenient is disgusting. (Even with rape, it's not the kids fault, but that's a different topic). Maybe the POTUS should implement some better education, and stress the consequences of sex at the grade school level.

@joshrmeyer: ok so they're irresponsible... so what? Are you seriously suggesting that pregnancy should be used as a means to punish people who are irresponsible?

Pro-lifers have such a cynical view of life.

@toast_burner: Maybe put the money to more and better orphanages... Have a better adoption policy that doesn't cost $20,000 to adopt a kid. I don't want anyone to be punished. And I don't really have a solution other than how I'm going to educate my daughter. I guess I'm just urging men and women to be responsible if they are going to be sexually active. I know this post isn't going to do anything but whatever. I really hope people aren't just being careless because they know abortion is an option. I have a friend that went through it, and it still haunts her. It's just a bad situation all around. I know there are a million different cases, like a crack head mom or whatever, but I'm just frustrated with the perfectly healthy mother doing it because she didn't think before having sex... Like I said, Plan B can be gotten over the counter 24/7 at any pharmacy (that's open 24/7). Accidents happen. Speaking of irresponsible, let's go with these idiots(I'll include myself when I was in my early 20's) who drink and drive... They kill someone... Should they not be punished? We all know better, and the law is strict about the consequences. There's no debate when you're over the limit and kill someone. It sucks, but life has consequences and I hope people start to understand that.

@joshrmeyer: why can't you promote sex education and allow abortions? It doesn't need to be one or the other. And better orphanages doesn't solve the problem of going through 9 months of pregnancy.

Are you seriously comparing drink driving to having an abortion? There's no way you honestly think that's at all similar. A better comparison would be someone who left a wound untreated and it's now infected, should he be denied treatment because he was irresponsible for not treating it earlier?

It's called a "consequence of your actions". The idea that I have to explain to you that accountability is a thing scares me.

@n64dd:

This argument about consequences for their actions is clearly bullshit as it's not applied to any aspect of life other than ones that are sexual. So many medical procedures could be prevented by healthy eating, not going in dangerous areas, having a safe job, or identifying symptoms before they become serious. So where is all the outrage about these irresponsible cancer patients that didn't think blood in their stools was a reason to go to the doctor?

If men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be free and funded by taxpayers, it would also be a Constitutional right.

Straw man.

@n64dd: no it's not. You established that your philosophy is that people should be held accountable for their actions, I called bullshit as you're only applying it to sexually active women.

It's a simple question, does that philosophy apply to other medical procedures or just those that effect women?

The war on women? GTFO.

What about the war on the unborn ?

holy shit I can't believe we have people thinking that a woman should have to go through 9 months of pregnancy as some sort of punishment or at best a life lesson "Now sweetie, what did we learn about sex?" are you fracking kidding me? WTF is wrong with you pro-lifers?

I've never known a single woman, and I've known a few, that has gone through with an abortion and taken it lightly. The opposite, actually; they generally feel terrible about it.

Ironically, I have known a few women that take pregnancy and child-rearing lightly, however, which only makes the argument for abortion stronger. Some people just shouldn't have kids, or are not ready for kids.

In the end, though, women don't need any reason to get an abortion other than "because I want to get one".

The only part of this that makes sense is the last 19 words.

Sometimes you need to take reactive measures. I think the problem is a lot of pro-lifers think that abortion is used as a contraceptive by people, like a condom or birth control. It's not, it's a lot more serious than that. Women aren't skipping down to the clinic going "la de da yay for me it's abortion time" getting abortions every single time they get pregnant.

And, not to sound like a broken record because I say this in every argument, but pro-choice is the only logical solution here: pro-choice is exactly that, a choice; it allows for both sides of the debate to get what they want, and does not force anything on anyone. Pro-life is an authoritarian, oppressive policy that is not only anti-human, but goes against the values of America; it forces people into something they should not be forced into.

@toast_burner: I think you're completely missing the point that with abortion, another life is involved. That's not an infection growing inside you. Having unprotected sex is as irresponsible to me as drink driving, so yes, I'm comparing them, using the analogy because in both cases, a life may be taken based on that action. Not treating a wound analogy doesn't take into consideration of another life would be killed to fix the "wound". That's the whole argument... What someone does with their own life is up to them. How bout this analogy: How responsible would I be if I was driving my 6 year old around recklessly, not making sure she had her seat belt on, was in a booster seat, etc, and crashed and killed her? My point again is that 2 people's lives are involved. In that case, I'd be held responsible for the death of my child. Guess the difference is, with abortion, you are knowingly killing your child in cold blood... So maybe that was a bad analogy.

@mrbojangles25: Going through 9 months of pregnancy is probably less punishment that having an abortion and having to live with that. There's couples that cannot have a child that'd adopt. Seems like the better scenario to give your kid away to someone who wants a child than destroy it. It just seems odd that if you do have a child, and it's cries too much or whatever, you're reasoning should be that you can just drown the child because you shouldn't be punished for it lol. Yeah I know, pro-choice people say that's not a life yet... It's 2018, we know that it is indeed a life. Actually all through history we've known that it is a life inside the mother and humanity has treated it as such.

@joshrmeyer: for that argument to work you'd have to agree that it's murder to kill an embryo.

So again this seems to have nothing to do with life but forcing religious views on sex and morality on others.

Good

@toast_burner: Yeah that's the argument... It's not just religious views anymore. Science backs up religion. With newer technology in the last century, we can see it's a life. I think it's one of those things people don't want to accept. Even those that do have an abortion feel guilty about it... Why is that if it isn't a life?

Could you imagine if we told coal miners they weren't allowed treatment for black lung disease because they knew it was a risk of the job going in?

was hoping we'd get a bit further into the debate before the whole "it's a human/it's an embryo" argument came up, but here we are. How do we know it's a life? And how have we known all through history? Please, I'd love to hear how an unaware, unconscious, embryo is a life like me. Does it have 30+ years of memories? Does it know it exists? Is it educated, does it have a job, has it loved and lost? You could sooner make the argument that a pregnancy is anti-life, seeing as how it leeches nutrients from the mother like an alien parasite, consumes more resources than a normal person, and historically would often kill the mother at birth...but that, too, would be ridiculous (yet now that I've said it, it seems less ridiculous than calling an embryo "life").

Comparing an embryo--whether it's an actual person or just a clump of cells--to an actual, birthed-out-the-womb child is a bit of stretch. Wanting to kill your baby because it's screaming and crying and comparing that to aborting a pregnancy before it's actually progressed more than a few months is a bit of a stretch. And when I say "bit of a stretch" I mean a huge, ridiculous, Grand Canyon-sized gap in logic, reasoning, and comparisons.

Hell, by that logic, I know some 20-something year olds we should abort as well. But we don't call it abortion; because these people are actually conscious, we call it murder. A word that should be reserved only for actual people, not fetuses. That's the key ingredient your argument misses; that tailed lump in a woman's womb is not really conscious, and it's still a part of her body. It's not its own entity yet. It isn't aware of mom, or dad...it doesn't know it's in a womb or that there's a world outside...it isn't aware of itself for Pete's sake. It might as well be another organ or body part inside a woman's body, and like the appendix, wisdom teeth, tonsils, and so forth they can (and, on occasion, even should be) be removed if needed.

As for the whole adoption thing, and respecting the fact that some people can't bear children, it's a moot point. There are already too many children in this world to adopt, so it's not like there's a shortage. As for carrying on an unwanted pregnancy out of respect for people that can't bear children, that is ridiculous; my cousin was one of those people, and she is still pro-choice. She tried for years and years to conceive a child, watched her friends have kids, watched some have abortion, and even in all her desperation she was still pro-choice because she knew that women should have a choice in the matter. She did not feel resentment or jealousy. She didn't watch her best friend get an abortion and stand there with her hands on her hips going "You know, some people aren't lucky enough to bear children, nyah nyah nyah" like some pasty, white, old conservative males do in our government.

Something the government already does in spades, and needs to stop.

Hell, where I went to college, there was a local law saying that if more than four unmarried women lived together, it was a brothel. So, technically, every sorority was a brothel! WOOOHOOO!

...and, in a sense, they were. Giggidy...

I imagine they probably feel guilty from exterior pressures, you know, like 1.) conservative parents telling them it's wrong or 2.) friends suddenly turning on them and telling them they're going to hell, or 3.) protesters standing outside the clinic yelling at them that they're terrible people.

Has nothing to do with the woman thinking it's a life, but everything to do with everyone but the woman thinking it's a life. Which is god damn silly; a woman should be able to come to a decision free of judgement.

I would imagine that abortions would still be a serious, but less guilt-inducing, experience if we lived a truly free society where people minded their own bees wax.

i wonder how many abortions trump has secretly paid for in his life....

@mrbojangles25: I guess in your mind a baby born at 7 months premature is not a life yet(one that still requires leeching onto a machine). Or a newborn baby since they don't have 30 years of memories like you do. How far along in the pregnancy do you feel it's ok to abort a baby? Or fetus, blob, whatever you want to call it to make yourself feel like it's less of a human than a newborn is.

Not for me to decide, just like it's not for you to decide, or any politician to decide, for that matter. Though I think collectively, for the most part, we all feel that once the baby is out it's too late :P

These opinions we have in matters this serious need to be held close to our chest, and shared with people conservatively. If a close friend came up to me (and they have) and asked my opinion on an abortion, I would answer their question with a question: "What do you want to do?" followed up by "I will support you either way"

I wouldn't go into a science-based tangent saying "Oh babies don't respond to stimuli until such and such a time" or a religion-inspired "Well, in my personal opinion, I think you will go to hell, you whore".

If pressed on the matter, I will simply ask what she thinks the pros and cons are (though not literally like that). What would her life be like with a child...can she live with getting an abortion...what are the health risks of getting an abortion/carrying on with the pregancy....is the father present and supportive...and so on, and so on.

It is simply. Not. Our. Place. To. Decide. For. People.

The path he walked is bathed in the blood of the unborn innocent! ALL GLORY TO TRUMP! BABY KILLER!

On the plus side, that's a lot of stem cells to medical research...

@mrbojangles25: Wow... I agree 100%. I started off in this thread as hoping people would just be more proactive and more aware of the consequences of unprotected sex. That's my hope. I wish there were better solutions. Thanks for the level headed response though. I think I'm done with this topic lol.

Cheers :D Thank you for the insight, it was truly a pleasant exchange for the most part.

@joshrmeyer: a chicken is a life, bacteria is a life, cancer is a life. Whether or not something is alive or not has never been the sole defining factor of if killing it is murder or not

@nintendoboy16: Eh?

Why is it a problem that the federal government want to cut funding to some clinics?

It should never be a taxpayers problem that some people can´t figure out what can be the result of unprotected sex.

You basically just said the government cutting funding to services to help people is a good thing.

No, what I said was that the taxpayers should not pay for peoples mistake. When that mistake is nothing but an inability to understand the concept of procreation

If you can have sex, you can also face the result of it.

so you think when a women gets rape and ends up pregnant she shouldn't get an abortion

@Jacanuk: so should tax payers not pay for STD screening and treatment?

Again like mentioned earlier in this thread, why is something sexual innately worse than everything else? People choose to join the military knowing that they could get shot or blown up, so should they be required to pay for their own surgeries?

Are you seriously comparing sex with military duty? do I REALLY need to explain to you why you can't compare both scenarios?

Also STDs like pregnancies can be avoided using contraceptives, look dude, why are you defending promiscuity? what exactly do you have against discouraging people from having unprotected sex?

Wow dude. You are certainly blaming women.

@Dark_sageX: both are things people don't need to do that have risks, so what is wrong with the comparison? I should point out the purpose of the comparison was to highlight how the argument that "you knew the risks, so deal with the consequences on your own" is bullshit.

Yes they can be avoided, so can all negative things in life. So whats your point? And how the hell does preventing legal abortions discourage unprotected sex? All you're doing is encouraging illegal abortions, which carry far great risks than legal ones.

And therein is the problem. Also abortion is a personal choice. I cannot force my beliefs on others. And I certainly won't follow their beliefs. And in 2018 all we can hope for is that no late term abortions are legal as it's definitely a human then and no quibbling over life.

@LJS9502_basic: It's their body. Unless they were raped, they should know and practice safe sex. You are acting like women are stupid. Men need to be responsible also with safe sex. I control who touches my body and if sex happens. I control my own body. Are you saying women have no say in who touches them?

I'm saying what I said. You are blaming women.

@LJS9502_basic: Lay off dude... Every post I made included men. They both need to practice safe sex if they don't want a child.

The American Taliban strikes again.

I read your post. I know what you said.