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

MessinaBloom so you support the banning of puberty blockers for all children under 16 year olds?

WPATH recommends puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2, no? Is the claim that PP would disapprove of this?

“WPATH’s president, Dr Marci Bowers, comments on the impact of early blocking of puberty on sexual function in adulthood. “To date,” she writes, “I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.” Tanner stage 2 is the beginning of puberty. It can be as young as nine in girls.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

You know I was objecting to the term “children”.

As for PBs, anyone starting them needs to have entered puberty already. They suppress a puberty that has already begun. So, the general age of starting is mid-late teens. Again, parental permission is still required.

Do you have a link though for this particular claim? The PP site says they don’t prescribe PB to anyone under 16.

Re: your fictitious 12-year-old, I hoping you could think laterally and consider the wider consequences to a community of losing services like this. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yes I do, apart from precocious puberty.

Please stop using the word “children”.

We are talking about children though.

Not always.

PP offer a range of services. Only some of them relate to gender-affirming treatment. These treatments are only accessible by those over 16 years and with parental consent.

I consider the distaste for the word “children” referencing minor human beings entering adolescence, as obfuscation which enables and conceals potentially harmful practices most people would naturally have a negative view on. As indeed they do.

WTF? Why do you people DO this?

“You people”

No. Hope that’s crystal clear.

Yes? The people on this board. It’s always the same.

You can’t imply that someone’s a child abuser because you don’t like their argument and want to shut them down. That’s bloody awful!^^

That’s your interpretation of one poster’s comment. “You people” is a generalisation of that interpretation to this board as a whole, no?

If you google Planned Parenthood, about puberty blockers, there's plenty online to show that they deliberately obscure the information, and make it opaque.

www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/ranking-member-cassidy-calls-out-planned-parenthoods-opaque-reporting-and-questions-its-use-of-taxpayer-dollars-to-fund-gender-transition-services

They have released adverts clearly aimed at vulnerable minors. Their blurb is rampantly ideological.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11300415/Planned-Parenthood-fire-cartoon-ad-pushes-puberty-blockers.html

It's not the least bit surprising that they have been told to stop, pending a review.

Puberty blockers are useless once in tanner stage 4, as the effects of puberty is already on its way. For boys this is 10-16, for girls 8-13.

I would call these age groups children.

This is the sort of thing that bloody winds me up.

We know that terminology is deliberately misleading in order to obscure abuse. You know it Messin, we know it. There has been thread, after thread about the framing of children as young people, young adults or just youth.

We also know that trans ideology is deliberately targeted at children. It's in bloody primary schools.

it's nothing to do with trying to shut people up. And everything to do with not obscuring the abuse that is happening to children.

Pretending that these children aren't uniquely vulnerable, that they are just operating under a normal adult decision-making process, is wrong.

Whether they are 12, 16, 18, and yes, 24. They are vulnerable, and made more vulnerable by being targeted.

and for the avoidance of doubt, no, I'm not accusing you of anything!

As for PBs, anyone starting them needs to have entered puberty already. They suppress a puberty that has already begun. So, the general age of starting is mid-late teens. Again, parental permission is still required.

What ages are in your definition of 'mid-late teen'?

One thing that can cause confusion is that adult trans sites are sex specific and if someone frequents a male dominated one, only sees 'trans care' focused on male bodies. Girls usually dont just start puberty during childhood, but go through it too. Seventeen year old girls have usually had periods for 4 years or so. If the PB model is waiting for the start of puberty, then suppress it, 17 would not be an obvious age.

However, 16 and 17 would be obvious for boys, because full puberty hasnt often kicked in - they dont have adult male shoulders, for example.

I was under the impression that puberty blockers were administered at tanner stage two. which is the definition of children, by anyone's standards.

Yes @Datunas Hannah Barnes says in the Guardian as per my link, it can be as young as 9 in girls.

I prioritise women. I am a feminist.
Who would you personally prioritise?

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

No. The law needs changed. Cutting women's services will not stop children from being harmed.

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

Yes. Girls also access women's services. Planned Parenthood and other organisations in this field do not purport to offer women's health services. They actually do it.

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

No.

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.

Now you're just talking shit.🙄

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.

Because the life saving services they provide to women are needed now more than ever. The law can be changed with the stroke of Trump's sharpie. Women should not have to pay the price, when there's no evidence it will help, for child safeguarding.

Is there any part of you that thinks he could have stopped funding immediately, pending a review, in order to wake them up. And then if they said okay we will stop treating gender confused children, he reinstates it.

Or do you genuinely believe he wouldn't do anything of the sort, and that's the end of state funding of Planned Parenthood, irrespective of whether they adhere to his requests.