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

What's your defence of the cuts to women's services?

Why don’t you answer the questions you’ve already been asked @TooBigForMyBoots ?

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

Do you support the medical treatment of children by organisations purporting to offer women’s health services?

Do you support the harm done to women in their thousands by the testosterone administered by organisations like PP?

I think you do. That’s why it isn’t a problem for you to rail against threats to funding. You think it’s loss-loss if this funding goes, because there will be a loss of women’s services and a loss of gender affirming treatments.

If you don’t support the medical harm of children and women, you need to explain why you think it’s ok for organisations like PP to continue “while it’s still legal”, which is what you said.

I’m fascinated by the continued insistence of posters’ use of the word ‘children’ in this context. Any young person accessing PP for puberty blockers would be at least 16 years old and it isn’t done without parental knowledge. PBs are expensive, are sometimes delivered via injection and cause complex hormonal interplays in the body, requiring oversight by a team of specialists.

No ‘children’ use PP services. Young people and women do, though, and they are often the most vulnerable and marginalised in society. Why should they bear the brunt of this?

Yes, that's something I've noticed when it comes to this "discussion."
Emotive language and phrases used, and children usually means any woman up to the age of 25 (because before then your brain isn't fully developed, apparently) whereas in any other context you'd be a fully grown adult at that age.

Let's call them 'minors' then.

No ‘children’ use PP services

Sigh….

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-upper-hudson/patient-resources/expanded-hours-walk-ins/gender-affirming-healthcare

Pubertal suppression?

Yes, we offer this to transgender and gender non-conforming adolescents who are entering puberty and wish to prevent the irreversible and undesirable changes that develop. Parental permission is required for this service.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-mar-monte/patient-resources/information-for-teens

“Privacy” means that if you are a young person between the ages of 12-17 in California or 12-16 in Nevada, you may have tests, receive treatment or talk with us about certain issues, and we cannot tell your parents, guardians or others unless you give us permission. We also cannot tell anyone that you are our patient without your permission.

And yes, we are also aware of the attempt by trans activists and Queer Theory proponents to re-brand children/minors as “young people”.

Can everyone please just now stop pretending Planned Parenthood hasn’t or isn’t partaking in the medical transition of minors?

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as under 18 - so yes 16 and 17 years are children.

Did you miss the part that you just copied and pasted that says “Parental permission is required for this service” (pubertal suppression)? And the other services are a separate thing entirely, so why mix them up?

You’re going to try and re-brand “children” now to “minors”? 17 year olds? That are, in actuality, being supervised by their parents or guardians?

You don't like the term children.
I suggest 'minors'
You accuse us of rebranding children as minors

@NotBadConsidering

Can everyone please just now stop pretending Planned Parenthood hasn’t or isn’t partaking in the medical transition of minors?

In full consultation with the young person’s parents, yes? They aren’t doing it a vacuum.

How does the statement…

Parental permission is required for this service

…prove your claim “no children use PP services”?

It doesn’t. And you’ve ignored the second part of my post that advises children as young as 12 that they can come to PP and their parents don’t have to know.

You really are getting desperate.

Do you acknowledge that when you say:

No ‘children’ use PP services

you are wrong?

You didn’t claim “no ‘children’ use PP services without their parents”, did you?

Neither is particularly accurate, as the age brackets pubertal suppression is applied isn’t until mid-late teens. Technically they are minors, yes, but the words “minor” and “children” are being used cynically in this discussion. These are sentient young people capable of making their own decisions, although in these cases, parents do need to sign off on them.

The two links above prove that children as young as 12 can be treated at Planned Parenthood. Some will be given puberty blockers as early as Tanner stage 2 with their parents’ permission. Some will be seen by Planned Parenthood without their parents for other services.

But children as young as 12 access Planned Parenthood.

And Planned Parenthood puberty block children as young as 12. It’s right there. They say it. Planned Parenthood then puts these children on cross sex hormones. Planned Parenthood sterilises children and causes irreparable long term harm with the medicalisation of children.

But apparently this is fine to continue because a) children are actually “young people” and b) it’s within the law.

Isnt the clue in the name?

Puberty blockers. They block puberty. They block maturity, development, progression, growing up.

Why would I need to defend them. I'm not supporting them.

But yet more deflection from you, which is interesting.

Different services within PP. They do have different areas?

Parental permission is required for pubertal suppression, and a 12 year old wouldn’t be getting those. Your 12 year old in Nevada is completely fictional, but even if they did exist, would likely be going to ask for help. Use your imagination to consider why that might be, and why it would be a tragedy if that 12 year old no longer had any avenues of assistance.

Those links say no such thing.

None of this backs up your error does it. You are wrong but can’t admit it. You didn’t say “only certain areas of PP treat children”. You said “no ‘children’ use PP”. You put children in quotation marks too.

Parental permission is required for pubertal suppression, and a 12 year old wouldn’t be getting those.

Why not? They say they provide puberty blockers as children who are “entering puberty”. Absolutely that’s 12 year olds. Is your defence of your error seriously going to be the Planned Parenthood website is lying?

Your 12 year old in Nevada is completely fictional, but even if they did exist, would likely be going to ask for help. Use your imagination to consider why that might be, and why it would be a tragedy if that 12 year old no longer had any avenues of assistance.

So is it fictional or a tragedy? Make your mind up. Which is it? To say it’s a tragedy, means you were wrong. To say it’s fictional means we don’t have to worry about PP losing funding for services to help our distressed 12 year olds potentially needing abortion.

Get your argument straight.

Those links say no such thing.

Absolutely desperate. The quality of your debating has significantly dropped. You realise people can read, don’t you?

I know when I’m getting close to the mark when insults like this are pulled out. Honestly? Tiresome.

Indeed. And I have read - this thread, and the PP website.

So can you explain why you think:

a) children don’t use PP services even though two websites say they offer services to children, with or without their parents

b) children don’t get puberty blockers even though one of the websites says they offer puberty blockers to children “entering puberty” which is by definition early adolescence.

Why would a 16 year old need puberty blockers? Puberty is finished by then.

Do you mean cross-sex hormones?