Trump team to stop family-planning funding as it reviews whether it’s being used for DEI programs

[IwantToRetire]

The Trump administration is planning to freeze tens of millions of dollars in federal grants to organizations providing family planning and other reproductive health services, as it reviews whether the funds violate the president’s order to cease all government-backed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal, which reported on the plan, that the department was reviewing grants to make sure they complied with the crackdown on DEI.

The freeze to the Title X program could impact as much as $120 million worth of grants to a network of roughly 4,000 clinics providing free and discounted pregnancy testing, contraception, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, and evaluations and testing for infertility.

Planned Parenthood, whose affiliates could lose roughly $20 million if the paused grants are ultimately cut, reacted with alarm.

“The Trump-Vance-Musk administration wants to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers by any means necessary, and they’ll end people’s access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more to do it,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America CEO Alex McGill Johnson told the newspaper.

https://www.aol.co.uk/trump-team-stop-family-planning-211853228.html

Yes. You shifted the focus from cuts to women's services, of 110 million dollars to a small part of what a single recipient of some of this money does.

The DEI cuts are not wholly or even majority to do with trans. So don't pretend it is. It's an assault on many Americans. It's an assault on women, who are losing access to life saving services because of the misogynist administration of the Fertilisation President Trump.

He overturned Roe vs Wade. He's attacking women further because women as a sex, fall under DEI. Plenty of women's health facilities who do not provide anything to do with trans will go under because of these cuts. Because DEI means women, the disabled etc.

Anyone cheerleading these cuts because they hit trans people is centring trans people. They're not centring women.

💯

No. Again, I didn’t shift the focus of anything. I pointed out a reason why Trump might be focussing on Planned Parenthood.

The DEI cuts are not wholly or even majority to do with trans. So don't pretend it is

Ok, so you’re absolutely certain that Planned Parenthood medicalising children has nothing to do with why their funding is being reviewed? (And there hasn’t been any cuts yet, just a review). Of course gender ideology has been playing a part in the DEI policy. It’s a key driver in every other decision. But you don’t think it is here somehow?

Ok, we”ll see, won’t we. If the cut to funding happens, we will see whether the malpractice has anything to do with the decision or not.

He overturned Roe vs Wade

No he didn’t. SCOTUS did in 2022. I’m sure you’ll come back and say “he stacked SCOTUS in his first term” and then we can have another debate about how RBG warned for years about the problems with Roe vs Wade and how successive Democrat presidents did absolutely nothing to fix the problem before it could be overturned on its legally shaky foundations like all the other hundred or so threads if you want. But the fact is Trump didn’t overturn it. It’s just another thing you’ve made up.

Anyone cheerleading these cuts because they hit trans people is centring trans people. They're not centring women

Anyone supporting potential cuts to PP’s medical mistreatment of children is centring children, while at the same time lamenting the impact that has on women’s services because of PP’s commitment to the medical mistreatment of children. People are capable of holding two thoughts together, funnily enough. HTH.

Trump is not focusing on Planned Parenthood. He's focusing on cutting women's services with these cuts. They go way beyond Planned Parenthood who is only one recipient of the funds being cut.

Which POTUS is responsible for the overturn of Roe vs Wade?

Centring children is not the same as centring women. Feminism centres women. Children benefit from feminism. No amount of lament over the loss of women's rights and womens lives is feminism.

People, feminists are capable of defending women's rights and defending children's rights at the same time. It isn't either or. HTH

Trump is not focusing on Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood must be one of the primary focuses otherwise why would they feel the need to pipe up and make a statement about it as quoted in the OP? They’re not a periphery to this action, they’re one of the big players.

Which POTUS is responsible for the overturn of Roe vs Wade?

None of them are directly, as I said. SCOTUS overturned it. If you want to talk indirectly responsible, then again, there have been multiple threads about the failure of 24 years” of Democratic presidents to solidify legislation as well as the role Republicans have played.

Centring children is not the same as centring women. Feminism centres women. Children benefit from feminism. No amount of lament over the loss of women's rights and womens lives is feminism

So maybe you should talk to PP to find out why they moved away from centring women with healthcare provision and included medicalising children in that provision.

Again, you seem to be making up an argument here. Everyone here can see a conflict. Why are you pretending people aren’t aware of it? The onus is on PP and other organisations to focus its provisions on women, not sterilising children. The idea that people should just hand wave away the significant harm done to children is preposterous. You say:

People, feminists are capable of defending women's rights and defending children's rights at the same time. It isn't either or. HTH

But with PP it is, isn’t it? You’re pointing out the conflict that people have. It PP goes bust then women suffer, but children will be protected from the harm they’re doing. So it IS either/or in this instance, isn’t it. That’s everybody’s point🤨

But with PP it is, isn’t it? You’re pointing out the conflict that people have. It PP goes bust then women suffer, but children will be protected from the harm they’re doing. So it IS either/or in this instance, isn’t it?

Where do you stand @NotBadConsidering?
On the side of women?

Or not?

What you call “trans stuff” I call medical malpractice.

And this raises the question - if an organization is guilty of gross malpractice in one area, how likely is it they are doing great in another area of care?

And in fact their track record, even outside of the "trans stuff" isn't so great.

Where do you stand ?
On the side of women?
Or not?

I sure hope you are having this argument with the TRA-feminists too

Centring children is not the same as centring women. Feminism centres women. Children benefit from feminism. No amount of lament over the loss of women's rights and womens lives is feminism

This is is straight out of the kind of childish progressivism that says that "rights are not a pie". Where you elevate one group above all others and claim that there is no need to balance the conflicting rights of other groups, because there can be no conflicts of that kind.

So of course children's rights couldn't conflict with women's rights, or say, the rights of gay men to have a surrogate bear their kids, or any other conflict. As long as you support the hierarchical primacy of the correct group, the inherent rights of the others will fall into place. There is no call for society or government to do the difficult work of mediating where there are conflicts.

Well both, of course, what a ridiculous question 🤨 The whole point is how to resolve this issue. But the onus is on PP to do that. They could easily drop the harm they’re inflicting on children and focus solely on women’s health. I want PP to see sense before their commitment to a dangerous ideology causes harm to women in other ways (other than the damage they’re doing to women and girls with testosterone of course).

What about you? Do you want them to keep harming children with medicalisation as long as they keep their other services for women?

Well both, of course, what a ridiculous question.

It's the binary choice you gave when you asked: You’re pointing out the conflict that people have. It PP goes bust then women suffer, but children will be protected from the harm they’re doing. So it IS either/or in this instance, isn’t it?

So if it is, as you said It IS either/or (and just to be clear, my stance is it can be both without women's rights taking a hit), is your focus women's rights or children's @NotBadConsidering ?

I have answered your question. My focus is both and PP have developed the conflict.

Your answer is:

and just to be clear, my stance is it can be both without women's rights taking a hit

So how do you propose to resolve this? My answer is that PP drop their medical harm on children. How do you propose that children are protected without women’s rights taking a hit, specific to PP?

The easiest solution is for POTUS to ban puberty blockers for "trans presenting" kids across the board. Zero need to cut women's services and children are protected from infertility and mutilation.

And no, you haven't answered my question. Or your own: It PP goes bust then women suffer, but children will be protected from the harm they’re doing. So it IS either/or in this instance, isn’t it?

We are going round in circles now.

The easiest solution is for POTUS to ban puberty blockers for "trans presenting" kids across the board. Zero need to cut women's services and children are protected from infertility and mutilation.

Well of course, if you add cross sex hormones into that I would completely agree with you.

But you haven’t answered my question either.

If it came down to it, I would rather PP continue, and try and protect children from the immense harm they’re doing by other means. But I would continue to remain furious with them for it.

And if it came down to it that their funding is cut because they refuse to concede and stop harming children, I would be equally furious with them for compromising both women’s health and children by their rigid adherence to gender ideology.

But it would be their fault, not anyone here.

What about you? Do you think they should continue to medically harm children if it means preserving their services for women?

But these cuts aren't just about Planned Parenthood. They receive 1/6 of the planned cuts. The other 5/6, $100 million are cuts to 1000s of other providers of women's sexual health services.

These cuts are to women's services. That trans people are impacted through PP is coincidental but oh so useful in convincing women that the removal of their rights is a good thing. Even getting them to cheerlead for it on feminist forums.

Yes, there will be consequences for some women, but overall it's a sensible move if it's only for the short term.

Said no feminist ever!

But again, you haven’t answered my question. Specific to Planned Parenthood, do you think it’s ok to keep harming children if it means that women’s services continue?

I answered it. Personally, I would look to stop PP harming children in other ways. Others think that women’s services will find another way and at least harm to children will be prevented in the meantime.

What do you think, specific to PP?

Specific to PP, I think they should continue to get funding as long as they remain within the law. Also specific to Planned Parenthood, I think they should receive funding for their work with women's sexual health and reproductive rights. But this is not a specific instance about a specific provider.

These cuts are a further attack on women's rights and services from the misogynist Trump administration. Women's achievements are being erased because of DEI. Women's services and rights are being demolished because of DEI. Women will die because of Trump's purge on DEI.

He's creating Gilead and all you wang on about is how PP spend some of their legally acquired funds within the confines of the law.

I wonder why?

So you think as long as harming children is within the law it’s ok to continue?

👏👏👏👏👏

The Democrats allowed Roe v Wade to be overturned because they never cemented it. Because they needed abortion to remain a live issue, in order to win elections. If abortion was put to bed as an issue, the Democrats would actually need to engage in actual policy in other areas. That's why the Democrats made damn sure abortion was never a secure right. And I say this as a Labour member. As RBG said, Roe v Wade was extremely bad policy and deserved to be and needed to be overturned.

Which POTUS is responsible for the overturn of Roe vs Wade?

The Democrats, as a whole.

feminists are capable of defending women's rights and defending children's rights at the same time. It isn't either or. HTH**

That is exactly what we've been telling YOU all along. That just because one supports a review into PP sterilising children, does NOT mean we support Trump. So you finally understand it now? It took you long enough to understand that fundamental concept.

Where do you stand, @TooBigForMyBoots ?
On the side of children?

Or not?

What would you personally prioritise? Women having abortions? Or innocent children being sterilised?

Pick one. Choose, and choose wisely.

Even getting them to cheerlead for it on feminist forums.

As you've been repeatedly told, no one on these forums have cheerleaded it.

Said no feminist ever!

So you're back to being binary, being one or the other. In your world, you cannot be a feminist and care for children's safeguarding at the same time.

So sterilising, chemically castrating, and destroying children's health is ok 'as long as it remains within the law' and women can get abortions? Because their funds are legally acquired?

Do you ever read back what you say before you press send?

Did you genuinely mean to say it's ok to keep harming children as long as it's 'within the law' (and as we all know, the law can be an ass, and what is legal does not mean it is moral. Or fair or just.), just so women can get access to abortions?

The easiest solution is for POTUS to ban puberty blockers for "trans presenting" kids across the board.

I missed this. Now you're talking. I agree completely. Ban puberty blockers and hormones (at least through PP and organisations that receive government funding). And leave the funding in place.

However the long running theme in this thread is that if we even dare mention the trans issue, we're seen as being defacto Trump supporters. It's the binary one-or-the other tunnel vision that sees you attacking those of us pointing out that PP sterilising/chemically castrating children is a bad thing = we're not feminist, in your mind. Because we have the temerity to talk about the issue.

We all (I include you in this) want what is best for women. And I presume children. Pointing out that if PP hadn't sterilised /chemically castrated children it would have been harder for Trump to target PP (as DEI would not have come into it), does not mean we support Trump are "cheerleading for Trump" nor are we prioritising 'anti trans' over women.

However the long running theme in this thread is that if we even dare mention the trans issue, we're seen as being defacto Trump supporters. It's the binary one-or-the other tunnel vision that sees you attacking those of us pointing out that PP sterilising/chemically castrating children is a bad thing = we're not feminist, in your mind. Because we have the temerity to talk about the issue.

And this is a very deliberate tactic from the left, because they don't want to talk about this. They don't want to have to defend it. So all their energy is poured into attempts to shut people up on it.

If people can't defend something, they need to ask themselves why they are supporting it