U.S. judge blocks Trump's cutoff of family planning subsidies: plaintiffs

[webfact]

U.S. judge blocks Trump's cutoff of family planning subsidies: plaintiffs

By Steve Gorman

 

FILE PHOTO: A sign is pictured at the entrance to a Planned Parenthood building in New York August 31, 2015. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge in Washington state on Thursday blocked a Trump administration cutoff of U.S. subsidies for poor women obtaining birth control from Planned Parenthood and other clinics that offer abortion services or information to patients, according to the state attorney general.

 

The preliminary injunction bars enforcement nationwide of a policy due to go into effect on May 3 over the vehement objections of abortion supporters, who have decried it as a "gag rule" that would prevent doctors from doing their jobs.

 

“Today’s ruling ensures that clinics across the nation can remain open and continue to provide quality, unbiased healthcare to women,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement announcing the decision.

 

Washington state was a named plaintiff in the court challenge, along with the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

 

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, capped a hearing in which oral arguments were presented by each side.

 

A federal judge in Oregon earlier this week said he intended to grant a preliminary injunction in a similar but separate court case brought there by Oregon, 19 other states and the District of Columbia.

 

Yet another lawsuit challenging the new restrictions on the federal government's Title X funding for reproductive healthcare and family planning services is pending in Maine.

 

The restrictions are aimed at fulfilling President Donald Trump's campaign pledge to end federal support for Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides abortions and other health services for women under Title X.

 

Congress appropriated $286 million in Title X grants in 2017 to Planned Parenthood and other health centers to provide birth control, screening for diseases and other reproductive health and counseling to low-income women.

 

The funding is already prohibited from being used for abortions, but abortion opponents have long complained that the money in effect subsidizes Planned Parenthood as a whole.

 

(Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; additional reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-04-26

[Tug]

Good and double good nice little reminder for the lady’s to remind them how toxic Donald is!

[simple1]

Also trump Admin watered down UN legislation against sexual violence in War in support of Christian evangelists objection to abortion. The Administration should hang it's head in shame, but No, continues on it's path of undermining international Rule of Law in its self absorption for domestic political gain from its base.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/24/un-wanted-end-sexual-violence-war-then-trump-administration-had-objections/?utm_term=.5396b4e468c5

[Sir Swagman]

How myopic does an administration need to be to fail to realise that this is a cost benefit policy? Of course it may be that it just fell into the basket of ‘grab back/cut back expenses’ to fund the indefensible ‘tax reform’ DT put in place that has enriched him and his ilk at the expense of the majority. A truly caring administration. America is in danger of totally losing whatever moral compass it has left.

[johnnybangkok]

An awful man pampering to a religious zealot base. The self same base who see no hypocrisy in supporting a twice divorced, serial womanizer who openly admits his affairs with porn stars and prostitutes and loves to 'grab 'em by the pussy'.

They are all about protecting the child in the womb but couldn't give a rats arse once that same child makes it into the real world. 

The sooner he and his demented followers exit the scene the better for America.

[howbri]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Also trump Admin watered down UN legislation against sexual violence in War in support of Christian evangelists objection to abortion. The Administration should hang it's head in shame, but No, continues on it's path of undermining international Rule of Law in its self absorption for domestic political gain from its base.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/24/un-wanted-end-sexual-violence-war-then-trump-administration-had-objections/?utm_term=.5396b4e468c5

Trying to save the lives of unborn children is NOT for "domestic gain", it's called fighting barbarism.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, howbri said:

Trying to save the lives of unborn children is NOT for "domestic gain", it's called fighting barbarism.

Rape as a weapon of war is barbarism.

 

Forcing women who have been raped to go full term is barbarism.

 

Away with you and your hogwash. 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, howbri said:

Trying to save the lives of unborn children is NOT for "domestic gain", it's called fighting barbarism.

Disagree, with trump it's all about his supporters. However, try your soapbox speech with those raped as a tool of war. e.g. Yazidi women by ISIS

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides abortions and other health services for women under Title X.

It does not provide abortions under Title X.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

The funding is already prohibited from being used for abortions

 

[Guest Jerry787]

there will be decades before recover the disaster this thrump its making .... 


NO MEN SHALL NEVER decide what is right for a woman, anyone who pledge to boycott and ban abortion shall be sent back to middle-age at the inquisition days!

barbarian is ottuse bigot who impose a free woman what to do !!!!

[Whip]

How can one judge in one state block a federal mandate?

[GinBoy2]

13 minutes ago, Whip said:

How can one judge in one state block a federal mandate?

Because he is a Federal judge, not a State judge, so he has jurisdiction over Federal legislation.

 

You can challenge Federal legislation in any State to a Federal judge and it applies nationwide

Edited April 26, 2019 by GinBoy2

[otherstuff1957]

12 minutes ago, Whip said:

How can one judge in one state block a federal mandate?

This is a Federal Judge, not a local one. 

 

The Administration can, and probably will, appeal, which means that it will go up to the next level, which I think would be the Circuit court or maybe an Appeals court.  If they keep fighting this decision, it could go up to the Supreme Court.

 

If the Administration's lawyers think that they won't win, they may just drop it as they have already made a show for their voting base.

[GinBoy2]

1 minute ago, otherstuff1957 said:

This is a Federal Judge, not a local one. 

 

The Administration can, and probably will, appeal, which means that it will go up to the next level, which I think would be the Circuit court or maybe an Appeals court.  If they keep fighting this decision, it could go up to the Supreme Court.

 

If the Administration's lawyers think that they won't win, they may just drop it as they have already made a show for their voting base.

I think that is probably the most likely outcome of this, but with Trump we are in uncharted water!

[Trouble]

I have no problem with abortion per the Roe V. Wade ruling. I am starting to question whether the advocacy of "very" late term abortion or after birth infanticide is something that should be taking place. Late term is generally considered about 24 weeks (6 months). I'm not really clear on what people on the left are advocating at this point. Lots of confusion over this. If a women can't make up her mind in 24 weeks they have a serious problem. However, I am not so sure that the taxpayers should be funding anything but birth control. I'm all for government funded birth control but think it is a bit odd to see the taxpayers being forced to fund abortion which may be against their beliefs. Personally I think Planned Parenthood is a racket taking millions from the government and in business basically to make those that run it quite wealthy.  Like so many contracted "social services" that local, state, and federal government fund, little money is spent on the services and lots of money spent on those that run the organizations.  It is like everything else the government involves itself in, it is never well run and never goes as intended. 

[Langsuan Man]

9 hours ago, Trouble said:

Personally I think Planned Parenthood is a racket taking millions from the government and in business basically to make those that run it quite wealthy.

Did it ever occur to you that Planned Parenthood exists only because the US government refuses to get involved in the implementation of birth control programs, or medical programs of any kind.  And when it does,  it royally screws it up

 

VA health care is a perfect example of the government trying to run something.  Is Tri Care for Veterans a racket in your opinion, since it provides funds to private agencies to care for Veterans outside of the VA hospital system ?  Do you think the executives at the VA or Tri Care are only in business to make money ?

 

When you have a private health care system like we have in America, there are certain things that the government has to pay someone to do for them;  Planned Parenthood is that someone

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Langsuan Man

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have no problem with abortion per the Roe V. Wade ruling. I am starting to question whether the advocacy of "very" late term abortion or after birth infanticide is something that should be taking place. Late term is generally considered about 24 weeks (6 months). I'm not really clear on what people on the left are advocating at this point. Lots of confusion over this. If a women can't make up her mind in 24 weeks they have a serious problem. However, I am not so sure that the taxpayers should be funding anything but birth control. I'm all for government funded birth control but think it is a bit odd to see the taxpayers being forced to fund abortion which may be against their beliefs. Personally I think Planned Parenthood is a racket taking millions from the government and in business basically to make those that run it quite wealthy.  Like so many contracted "social services" that local, state, and federal government fund, little money is spent on the services and lots of money spent on those that run the organizations.  It is like everything else the government involves itself in, it is never well run and never goes as intended. 

“I am starting to question whether the advocacy of "very" late term abortion or after birth infanticide is something that should be taking place.”

 

Very late term abortions are extremely rare and are only used as a very last rest where there is an extreme health concern for the ‘mother’s’ or foetus’ physical health.

They are by no means a regular practice and they do not arise from late decisions by the pregnant woman that she doesn’t want to go full term.

 

You are right there should be no ‘after birth infanticide’.

 

Here the good news, there isn’t. The extremists in the anti choice camp made that up.

 

Here’s more good news, the term 

‘after birth infanticide’ implies the existence of ‘pre-birth infanticide’

There’s none of that going on either, because it doesn’t exist, the anti-choice camp made it up.

 

Infanticide does of course occur outside of the health profession ,unwanted babies killed or left to die.

 

Abortion rights provide women with choices that reduce the likelihood of such infanticide occurring.

 

Abortion rights also provide women with safe access to a procedure which we know as a fact they will seek outside the safety of healthcare services if it is outlawed.

 

All very avoidable by simply giving women the same dominion over their own bodies as men have over theirs.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Very late term abortions are extremely rare and are only used as a very last rest where there is an extreme health concern for the ‘mother’s’ or foetus’ physical health.

They are by no means a regular practice and they do not arise from late decisions by the pregnant woman that she doesn’t want to go full term.

 

You are right there should be no ‘after birth infanticide’.

 

Here the good news, there isn’t. The extremists in the anti choice camp made that up.

 

Here’s more good news, the term 

‘after birth infanticide’ implies the existence of ‘pre-birth infanticide’

There’s none of that going on either, because it doesn’t exist, the anti-choice camp made it up.

 

All of this is flat out false. Practically nobody debates weather or not abortion should be an option, at any time during pregnancy, if the mother or child's life is in danger. This is a lie and deflection from the pro-abortion left. 

 

There is open and frankly disgusting discussion AND policy for late term abortion (outside of a mothers child's physical health) based solely on the mothers 'decision' all the way up to the moment of birth, and if the child survives the abortion? They can have another go at killing it. 

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All very avoidable by simply giving women the same dominion over their own bodies as men have over theirs.

 

So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go a killing it? 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

All of this is flat out false. Practically nobody debates weather or not abortion should be an option, at any time during pregnancy, if the mother or child's life is in danger. This is a lie and deflection from the pro-abortion left. 

 

There is open and frankly disgusting discussion AND policy for late term abortion (outside of a mothers child's physical health) based solely on the mothers 'decision' all the way up to the moment of birth, and if the child survives the abortion? They can have another go at killing it. 

 

 

So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go a killing it? 

Here we go with the rabid tin foil hat hogwash.

 

 

 

 

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here we go with the rabid tin foil hat hogwash.

 

When you type hard left intentional misinformation, I will be here to put you back in place. 

 

People have a right to know what people like you are aiming for. 

 

Your thoughts on this statement:

 

9 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go at killing it? 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

When you type hard left intentional misinformation, I will be here to put you back in place. 

 

People have a right to know what people like you are aiming for. 

 

Your thoughts on this statement:

 

“So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go at killing it?”

 

My thoughts on the statement are it’s a strawman.

 

“late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice”

 

Does not exist, it is a hyperbole fallacy that ‘people like you’ buy into.

 

“And if it survives, you can have another go at killing it”

 

More hyperbole fallacy that ‘people like you’ buy into.

 

I’m sorry Thainess, if you wish to believe in stuff that doesn’t exist and then come here trying to kick off arguments over your imagined reality I can’t help you.

 

Away with you and your imagined reality.

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Thainesss]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Away with you and your imagined reality.

 

Im not going anywhere. 

 

Your deflection of the question tells me all I need to know. 

 

And your denial of the left's open discussion going on about late term abortions and infanticide is extremely well noted. 

 

House Democrats Refuse to Allow Vote Against Infanticide -- For 17th Time

 

Quote

On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives refused to allow a bill that would protect babies that survive an abortion to move forward for consideration and a vote by members of Congress. This was the 17th time the Democrats have stopped the bill since they took control of the House in January.

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/house-democrats-refuse-allow-vote-against-infanticide-17th-time

 

You're people ^

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Thainesss

[Tug]

33 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Im not going anywhere. 

 

Your deflection of the question tells me all I need to know. 

 

And your denial of the left's open discussion going on about late term abortions and infanticide is extremely well noted. 

 

House Democrats Refuse to Allow Vote Against Infanticide -- For 17th Time

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/house-democrats-refuse-allow-vote-against-infanticide-17th-time

 

You're people ^

 

 

There are some very sad sad people on tv just bizarre and sad

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Im not going anywhere. 

 

Your deflection of the question tells me all I need to know. 

 

And your denial of the left's open discussion going on about late term abortions and infanticide is extremely well noted. 

 

House Democrats Refuse to Allow Vote Against Infanticide -- For 17th Time

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/house-democrats-refuse-allow-vote-against-infanticide-17th-time

 

You're people ^

 

 

The House refuse to hear a bill to outlaw something that isn’t happening. 

 

Doh!

 

 

Thainess, if you have knowledge of infanticide being committed I urge you to quit wasting time talking about it here in TVF and file a report with the FBI, the sooner the better.

 

When filing your report you don’t need to provide your own details but you must provide sufficient information, for example names of suspects, addresses and an indication of what evidence you have.

 

If the FBI find your report credible they will investigate.

 

I don’t know how, if you are so assured of these crimes, you could not do the right thing and file a report.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

All of this is flat out false. Practically nobody debates weather or not abortion should be an option, at any time during pregnancy, if the mother or child's life is in danger. This is a lie and deflection from the pro-abortion left. 

 

There is open and frankly disgusting discussion AND policy for late term abortion (outside of a mothers child's physical health) based solely on the mothers 'decision' all the way up to the moment of birth, and if the child survives the abortion? They can have another go at killing it. 

 

 

So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go a killing it? 

Totally incorrect, just made up misinformation.

[johnnybangkok]

9 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

All of this is flat out false. Practically nobody debates weather or not abortion should be an option, at any time during pregnancy, if the mother or child's life is in danger. This is a lie and deflection from the pro-abortion left. 

 

There is open and frankly disgusting discussion AND policy for late term abortion (outside of a mothers child's physical health) based solely on the mothers 'decision' all the way up to the moment of birth, and if the child survives the abortion? They can have another go at killing it. 

 

 

So you support late term and last minute abortion, that has nothing to do with the mother or child's health, based solely on the woman choice? And if it survives, you can have another go a killing it? 

Unsubstantiated nonsense. Please educate yourself before you spew your ill informed nonsense on here. I know you’re not big on facts but all of this is very easy to find with a simple google search. Here I’ll start you off. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1e13f3a241c3

[johnnybangkok]

19 hours ago, Trouble said:

I have no problem with abortion per the Roe V. Wade ruling. I am starting to question whether the advocacy of "very" late term abortion or after birth infanticide is something that should be taking place. Late term is generally considered about 24 weeks (6 months). I'm not really clear on what people on the left are advocating at this point. Lots of confusion over this. If a women can't make up her mind in 24 weeks they have a serious problem. However, I am not so sure that the taxpayers should be funding anything but birth control. I'm all for government funded birth control but think it is a bit odd to see the taxpayers being forced to fund abortion which may be against their beliefs. Personally I think Planned Parenthood is a racket taking millions from the government and in business basically to make those that run it quite wealthy.  Like so many contracted "social services" that local, state, and federal government fund, little money is spent on the services and lots of money spent on those that run the organizations.  It is like everything else the government involves itself in, it is never well run and never goes as intended. 

What absolute nonsense. People who have only one goal in life which is to help woman who are shunned by a religious dominated political stance (whatever happened to division of church and state) are now money grabbing leaches only in it to get wealthy. Please post one corroborated paper that backs up your statement. Otherwise please try and educate yourself to the reality of what is going on in the US with Trump (obviously a bastion of Christian values) purely trying to keep an evangelical base on side. 

[candide]

9 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

Im not going anywhere. 

 

Your deflection of the question tells me all I need to know. 

 

And your denial of the left's open discussion going on about late term abortions and infanticide is extremely well noted. 

 

House Democrats Refuse to Allow Vote Against Infanticide -- For 17th Time

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/house-democrats-refuse-allow-vote-against-infanticide-17th-time

 

You're people ^

 

 

In 2002, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which guaranteed to infants born at any stage of development full legal rights. Why a new law?

[Thainesss]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

In 2002, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which guaranteed to infants born at any stage of development full legal rights. Why a new law?

 

To adjust the law to make it a criminal act punishable by up to 5 years for doctors, and to address 'passive' abortion, allowing the baby to 'eventually pass' as noted from the Gosnell case, to mandate medical care, and require reporting of such actions if known. 

 

Nothing unreasonable at all, just further specifying the details. 

 

And the dems refuse it. Seems to be if they wanted to be seen as not supporting infanticide, they could easily pass it. And don't forget this all came about because of Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam comments. Both Democrats. 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

To adjust the law to make it a criminal act punishable by up to 5 years for doctors, and to address 'passive' abortion, allowing the baby to 'eventually pass' as noted from the Gosnell case, to mandate medical care, and require reporting of such actions if known. 

 

Nothing unreasonable at all, just further specifying the details. 

 

And the dems refuse it. Seems to be if they wanted to be seen as not supporting infanticide, they could easily pass it. And don't forget this all came about because of Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam comments. Both Democrats. 

Again you post nonsense.

 

Infanticide is a crime.

 

If you have evidence of infanticide report it.