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

On the contrary - you're still trying to police this thread with your demands that we stop mentioning children despite posters giving a range of examples about why society must be able to distinguish between adults and children when discussing gender identity, transactivism, sex and sexuality, puberty blockers etc. You're alleging that these explanations are directed at you when posters have pointed out the dangers of your demands.

It's an uncomfortable truth that predators see children as targets, as mini adults, as consenting to sexual acts and it's vital that we're able to identify age related issues if we're to safeguard children. That applies on this thread as much as it does across society.

It's not personal - it's about children.

So - buried in this message above, are you labelling me a predator? Simply because I was disturbed by continued (deliberate) use on this thread of the word ‘children’ to describe older teenagers?

Teenagers ARE children! It's literally the DEFINITION of a teenager! A child!

One wonders why you are deliberately intent of saying children are not children. Why do that? What's your end game? Why are you pretending children are not children??

Older teenagers, 16 to 18, are children in law.

It’s hard to understand why you dispute the use of the word.

No one is labelling you a predator, but there are other people who would dispute, for example, that sexual abuse of a person that age is CSA, for similar reasons that you deploy. Luckily they don’t have a leg to stand on, because the law is the law.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law

'The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".'

'In England, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

• living independently
• in further education
• a member of the armed forces
• in hospital; or
• in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2023).'

Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 defines a 'child' as a person under the age of 18.

Scotland

In Scotland, the definition of a child varies in different legal contexts, but statutory guidance which supports the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, includes all children and young people up to the age of 18.
Where a young person between the age of 16 and 18 requires support and protection, services will need to consider which legal framework best fits each persons’ needs and circumstances. The National guidance for child protection in Scotland gives more detail about this and explains how professionals should act to protect young people from harm in different circumstances (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Wales

Section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 states that a child is a person who is aged under 18.'

How unsurprising that Scotland has to be different.

Adultification is institutionalised in Scotland.

Messinabloom, I understand that you have a difficult history and as I said, I'm sorry about that.

But on this thread, you are repeatedly drawing inference where there is none. You are taking comments as personal when there is no reason to do so.

People on this thread are discussing points related to legislation, language, and social movements. They could I suppose be taken to be personal to anyone, because these things affect all of us as members of society, often as mothers, and unfortunately abuse is not uncommon.

But they are not points directed at you or any one person.

I wonder if you may find any of these links helpful?

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/guides-to-support-and-services/abuse/

Wishing you all the best.

No - there's no implicit or explicit allegation "labelling you a predator". I'm challenging your repeated attempts to police posters clarifying why it's important to distinguish between children and adults when discussing these issues.

Respectfully, it might be an idea to have a look at Araballa's post above?

But on this thread, you are repeatedly drawing inference where there is none. You are taking comments as personal when there is no reason to do so

this

i think this is where its gone a bit wrong

no one has said that everyone who thinks that 16 and 17 year olds shouldn’t be called children is a predator

my very lovely sil calls people of those ages ‘young adults’ they are not adults and she is not a predator, neither are people who work in the nhs or in colleges or my old manager at the shop i worked in who got very annoyed if anyone referred to the 16 years olds as children…

Why was justasking111's post deleted? It was responding to my earlier post?

Thank you - I do appreciate that, and your link.

But do remember, posters DID implicitly label me a predator, so I’m hardly “drawing inference where there is none”. I’m also aware how certain posters operate.

The UNCRC (Scotland) Act 2024 means all public authorities in Scotland must consider 16 and 17 year olds to be Children too.

To repeat for lurkers: puberty blocker use is recommended to start at Tanner Stage 2 by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Tanner Stage 2 is the onset of puberty. In girls this can be as early as 9 years old.

To effectively “block” this key and necessary development stage, as considered desirable by trans rights activists to enable better “passing” as the opposite sex in later life, this approach would be necessary.

And as fertility develops during puberty, blocking puberty means they are left infertile. In other words, the decision to sterilise these children is made before many even turn 10 years old.

Maybe so, but it's worth it to make sure their deeply held, considered feelings match up with the arbitrary stereotypes applied to their sex, surely?

Any boy who likes dolls, any girl who likes football, must urgently be stopped from having to develop and go through puberty. And medicated! They are then able to pick and choose the surgery they want, to create whatever combination of genitalia feels most affirming and euphoric and validating to the child. It's lifesaving.

Otherwise imagine what would happen. We'd have men with long hair and girls with short hair and then we'd know it was end times.

Exactly.

We know from many detransitioners and even from the WPATH files leak that those children have no concept of what they are agreeing to. Even at 16 they have so little experience that they haven’t a clue what they are agreeing to and what the long term impact is. Or that they may change their minds a decade or two later when they have reached adulthood.

Was it. Missed that. Must have been reported. No idea which one though.

Humans are not adult humans until the age of 18, before that they are children.

The fact that it is harmful to children to imply that they are adults doesn't mean that anyone thinks that adults who do this are predators. The adults who do this are just wrong.

We all know that predators prey on the vulnerable so obfuscating language around humans who are not adults is wrong. They ARE children.

And there is some evidence to show that if puberty is blocked then IQ is likely to be affected. (Although further research is needed).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.17150

It makes sense, given what a critical development stage puberty is for the whole body.

Yes. There has been enough released to put brain maturity and development into question.

It could be said that those who have undergone these drug regimen will continue to underdeveloped in more than one aspect.

You can always email MN mods to find out why and state what your intentions for the post were.

There is no evidence that cognitive effects are fully reversible following discontinuation of treatment. No human studies have systematically explored the impact of these treatments on neuropsychological function with an adequate baseline and follow-up. There is some evidence of a detrimental impact of pubertal suppression on IQ in children.

bloody hell, you'd think they'd do a bloody study. How hard can it be?

On the other hand, as that awful woman at WPATH said, they would rather not know the results, so they can carry on ignoring them.

I know it's not evidence, but you've only got to look at kids like Jazz Jennings, and the girls transitioning in the Grace O'Malley documentary, to see how childlike they remain.

Plus Susie Green's son of course. Acted like an inarticulate stroppy teenager over the brush with KJK.

This is what this coming judicial review will look at. All these unanswered questions that are quite unethical once you consider them.

The drop in IQ has been picked up in humans. It has been tested on animals. Yet, any correlation with puberty blocking has been dismissed enough that world specialists and governments are willing to allow the trials to go ahead.

We know that the majority of people who choose these treatments have comorbities that might include mental health issues. Well, highly likely to include mental health issues. Why are we as a society so keen to dismiss those people’s lives in such a way that we then are allowing them to potentially drop IQ points and failing other developmental milestones of their brain’s development? It doesn’t make sense.

All for a philosophical belief? Not remedying a physical issue but certainly creating one to fulfill a philosophical belief.