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

If I didn’t say “children” in my reply to you, I’d be attacked for that too. Can’t win either way, so I chose the path of least resistance.

You’re making absolutely zero sense now. Are you saying that to you, humans aged 12-16 are not children and you’re only using the world children to describe humans this age to appease my definition of children?

You don’t think humans this age are children?

I’m no longer replying to you. I’ve decided you’re not in this discussion for helpful reasons. You simply want to catch me out - why? I said before I do think PBs shouldn’t be given to those under 16, so we supposedly agree there. What’s the issue exactly?

The issue is this:

The funding of organisations like PP is under scrutiny for DEI reasons.

One of those DEI reasons could be their rampant gender treatments.

Some people have denied that organisations like PP give gender treatments to children.

Some people have denied PP see any children at all.

You are one of those people.

I have pointed out that PP treat children - and humans aged 12-16 are children by anyone sensible’s definition - for both gender and non-gender reasons.

You don’t seem to accept this.

To the rest of us, there is an ethical and moral dilemma between stopping PP from harming children through their gender treatments and allowing them to continue to provide much needed women’s healthcare.

This is not an ethical or moral dilemma to anyone who denies PP are even seeing children, let alone treating children with puberty blockers and CSH.

I am not “trying to catch you out”. I have pointed out how you have caught yourself out, by denying children are seen and then writing yourself that it’s important they provide information to the children they see.

You’re being contrary, for reasons known only to you. I’m glad you will no longer reply because the rest of us can get back to the discussion as to how the conflict between harming children and providing women’s services can be resolved, without your perpetual lying with denying they even see children at all.

@NotBadConsidering

This is my last post to you.

Read back please - I did state that PP may see young people under 16 for other treatments, perhaps as young as 12. Why is that such a terrible thing anyway?

They do not prescribe hormone treatment to any young person under 16, and they don’t do it without parental consent.

I’d appreciate it if you’d stop twisting my words and ascribing meaning where none exists.

They do not prescribe hormone treatment to any young person under 16, and they don’t do it without parental consent.

Yes they DO prescribe puberty blockers to children under the age of 16 because the link I posted said they prescribe puberty blockers to children “entering puberty”. This means that that particular PP is starting puberty blockers on children obviously younger than 16, given the vast majority of children, almost all in fact, enter puberty well before 16. “Entering puberty” is Tanner stage 2.

In America, the average age for “entering puberty” for white girls is 10, for black girls Is 8.9 with a range of 8-13. For boys that range is 9-14.

So the only way you’re correct is if

a) that PP is only treating the tiny number of children who don’t “enter puberty” until 16 or
b) they’re lying on their website.

Neither of these are at all likely to be true.

The parental consent aspect of your post is completely immaterial.

It is a given that children are given gender treatments at PP, probably determined by the state.

Now we’ve cleared that up, we can get back to the dilemma of how to stop otherwise good organisations from being in the thrall of gender ideology so they don’t risk the good work they do.

Would you post this link again, please?

No. It’s on page 23. Are you now saying you didn’t actually read the link you’re arguing against?

So why do you do it then? Why do you pit women's services over children's services? And you never answer the question.

So 15 year olds, 16 year olds, and 17 year olds don't go to PP for abortions? And don't use puberty blockers? Why would an ADULT need puberty blockers? FFS, stop lying!! Children use PP services, whether it be abortions, contraception, or PB. It's a really, really fucked up lie to say children don't use PP at all. I mean, where the hell did that lie come from?

Teenagers are actual children.

Teenagers use PP.

You're making a fool of yourself now.

The cuts are to women services because they serve women. They are not genderwoo cuts.

If you truly believe that, when the administration themselves mentioned gender ideology, you are beyond naive. Common sense (and their own admission) says it's because of gender ideology.

I did write before puberty must have begun before it can be suppressed.

And you've already been told you are absolutely wrong on this. They do not wait for puberty. That's the whole entire point of puberty blockers. They stop it from even starting.

Because it is the reason for the cuts to PP, as we all know!

In other words you were caught out demonstrably lying and saying children don't use PP's services, which is beyond fucked up to lie about, and now don't have the basic civility and good faith to admit you lied - or - to save face by saying you were confused.

You said "PP do not offer services to actual children."

Those are your actual words.

You LIED.

And you don't have the guts or the honour to admit it. Puberty Blockers are services to ACTUAL CHILDREN (27 year old women don't use puberty blockers, do they?). Contraceptive advice is services to ACTUAL CHILDREN. Contraception such as condoms, the pill, etc are services to ACTUAL CHILDREN.

For goodness sake woman, you were caught out bare faced lying. And you and all of us know it. It is in your own posts.

Again, I do not personally consider those 16 years and over ‘children’. The way the term has been used on this thread deliberately infantilises them, as if a big bad corporation has seized them eagerly with the sole aim of ‘sterilising’ them (a term I’ve seen often on the thread). Not so. These are young people with parents/guardians involved.

And I didn’t say children don’t use PP at all. That was NotBad’s poor comprehension.

Very pleased to see so much robust push back against the removal of the world child. The determination of flag wavers for trans ideology to obscure the vulnerability of children by pretending they're young adults is at best naive and worst, sinister.

As for the argument that women's rights should be prioritised over children - just displays the lack of critical thinking by so many transactivists.

FFS. Terminology. That was about terminology.

I was meaning children under 12.

Not in all cases. Do stop frothing.

And I didn’t say children don’t use PP at all. That was NotBad’s poor comprehension.

Yes, I poorly comprehended the part in your above post from page 23 where you said:

No ‘children’ use PP services

🙄

You’ve been clearly shown how children do use PP services and you’ve acknowledged it yourself. Now you’re trying to claim you meant children under 12. Give over, now.

No, I read it, I just didn’t want to go back that far to retrieve such an important link to re-read it. It still doesn’t say anything about 12 year olds or younger. You’re just inferring that.

Again, I do not personally consider those 16 years and over ‘children’.

Yet the rest of the world does, by definition.

You can think whatever you wish.

But they are children! What else are they? You are attempting a sleight of hand to get out of it.