Netherlands government to counter Trump abortion funding ban

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Donations are different from using tax dollars, although if nations donate, it will obviously be from tax dollars of some sort.

The funny thing is, if this works, it will show places like Planned Parenthood that private donations can and do work for things like this, and maybe people crying about federal funding of Planned Parenthood can maybe change their tune and try to bully private organizations into propping up the company.

But, I'm still glad that it's not my tax dollars going to this sort of thing, so this is a Trump move that I applaud.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Perfect solution...problem solved

My tax dollars aren't being spend on abortions and some other nation has stepped up to the plate. If the people of the Netherlands are OK with it, then win-win.

from the country that brought you euthanasia for toddlers.


good job!

I am from the Netherlands and I don't approve this counter measurement. Also I think it is absurd that any western country would fund abortions in other (development) countries. Just use a condom for God's sake or deal with the consequences if you don't.
All this western interference is not helping to grow incentive with the locals to change the way things are.
Just my opinion. But we are not helping whith giving money. We only allow the dependency to perpetuate.

This is good news and one I'm sure most Americans have no problem with.

Most Americans didn't even know their tax dollars were being used like this in a foreign country.

The guy or gal working two jobs to make ends meet, paying their taxes like good American citizens while forgoing things they could be spending their hard-earned paycheck on, had no clue that that money out of their paycheck was "helping" in other countries like this.

You go, Netherlands!! Raise funds all around the world if you need to in order to support your pet project, snuffing out yet another emerging life just because.....well....you can.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

PP is already supported by donations. Not to mention money they get from insurance companies. The federal funding they get odds through Medicaid/care. Defunding PP or any similar organization isn't an attack against those organizations. It's not even an attack against abortion. It's an attack against the poor and elderly.

a reply to: seeker1963

The 120th day is 5 months, pretty much the same here, around 20 weeks. But, it's not true that it's only allowed if the woman's life is at risk.

However under some conditions , Abortion is permitted; But diyat is to be paid before the soul enters the foetus.
The basic rule is that abortion is not permitted even at this stage, except under two conditions:

·         When there is a possibility of harm to to the mother and the doctors consider the harm to be great (to the mother).
·         If the foetus is illegitimate and its presence will be a source great difficulty in the society, due to which there will be spoiling of society.

After the soul has entered the foetus – Ayatullah Sistani says the soul enters the foetus after the completion of the third lunar month.

There are specified fiscal penalties (diyyat) to be paid for killing or aborting a fetus. This has to be paid even if the abortion is permitted as above, under Islamic law. The amount is as under;

Diyyat for nutfa – 20 dinar   ,  Diyyat for alaqa – 40 dinar   , Diyyat for musgha – 60 dinar
Diyyat If bones of the foetus have formed – 80 dinar  Diyyat if flesh has been formed- 100 Dinar
Diyyat if soul as entered the male foetus – 1000 Dinar, female foetus – 500 Dinar
3.5g of gold = 1 dinarr

Source

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You sound like this was a punch to the gut or something? I see absolutely no negative from this. In fact this is great for both parties.

a reply to: z00mster

The US wasn't funding abortion abroad before this rule change. This rule prohibits US aid to groups that also take funding from separate organizations or individuals, in order to provide legal abortions, or even refer a patient to a clinic that does.

This move would be illegal in the US, under current law. It would be like telling a private hospital that it could no longer accept any Medicare or Medical payments, at all, because it allows doctors to use it's hospital to perform privately paid for and legal, not to mention legally protected, abortions.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

What having another country fund your abortions is a opposite reaction?

America will stop funding agencies that help women with abortions internationally , The Dutch will fill the vacuum and start their own fund , opposite to the action of the US.

Well if you can't meet the NATO quota this what you do.

Free Abortion for the 3rd world I say.

Good for them.

Next we will get them to fund their own defense, along with the rest of Europe.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You sound like this was a punch to the gut or something? I see absolutely no negative from this. In fact this is great for both parties.

There is a scene from Boardwalk Empire, the TV series, in which a circa 1920s American woman drinks rotten raw milk in order to abort. That is the kind of thing that will inevitably happen in foreign poverty stricken areas, with the women who this new rule will affect the most. Women WILL die.

President Trump on Monday reignited the war over abortion by signing an executive order blocking foreign aid or federal funding for international nongovernmental organizations that provide or "promote" abortions.

thehill.com...

I don't think it was paying for abortions, but rather it's similar to the planned parenthood debate in this country, where, they get federal money for most of their services but not for the abortions, if any, that they provide. and I wouldn't be surprised if that means that no organization can even mention the word abortion, even if it's obvious that the women, or girl, will not survive a pregnancy.
on the one hand, I don't have a problem with this since I think that it's stupid for our country to borrow money just to send it out in the form of aide to another country. it would be like one of us going and asking for a loan so we can be nice to our unemployed friend and pay the down payment on a new house he wants to buy...
on the other hand though, more than likely they will just increase the budget somewhere that they find more worthy and still spend that money.. and they seem to have no problem using that money to provide arms and assistance for other countries to use to kill people.
and, like I said, they are saying, the these organizations will lose their funding unless they drop abortion as a viable solution to pregnancy, not even mention it as an option. and not only that they would like to extend this policy in the US also. such a think wouldn't just defund planned parenthood, but also probably most of the gyn/ob's in the country who would not accept the idea that when the women ran into trouble, they couldn't take the best medical alternative there was to get her out of danger, or even list it as an option. it's risking lives!!!

it you want to say, good, I'm tired of us sending aide all over the place when we can't take care of our own, that's fine, I would agree.. but when you say good!! I don't want my money paying for abortions, or paying for doctors mentioning it as a option in a women's healthcare..that where I part company with you.

originally posted by: stosh64
Good for them.

Next we will get them to fund their own defense, along with the rest of Europe.

We in the UK do fund our own defence , we're about to give you £100 billion for some more of the nice Trident missiles that return home when fired.

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: stosh64
Good for them.

Next we will get them to fund their own defense, along with the rest of Europe.

We in the UK do fund out own defence , we're about to give you £100 billion for some more of the nice Trident missiles that return home when fired.

I said Europe, intentionally leaving out the UK.

I don't consider the UK Europe. That is a compliment BTW.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You can say that any cessation of funding from the federal government will always trickle down and affect the poorest of the nation who use said programs or services, but that doesn't mean that the government, at some point, should not get out of the business of funding abortions, especially internationally.

My point about Planned Parenthood is that there are other avenues to recoup the money that may get lost in a cessation of federal funding (through Medicaid, Title X, or whatever) so that maybe they could become a "free" clinic and still provide care to those individuals that you mention. There are always other ways than relying on the federal government (AKA: Other people's money) to remain a viable business, even in the medical field. It may be harder, but if society deems that it's worthy of staying open, then they will step up.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: gortex

originally posted by: stosh64
Good for them.

Next we will get them to fund their own defense, along with the rest of Europe.

We in the UK do fund out own defence , we're about to give you £100 billion for some more of the nice Trident missiles that return home when fired.

I said Europe, intentionally leaving out the UK.

I don't consider the UK Europe. That is a compliment BTW.

Ha!


Glad I'm not the only one that looks at it like that! For some reason, I've always thought of it as: Europe and Great Britain. Always. Even when I lived in Italy as a kid.

Whenever I think European, I always think of French, Italian, German, Spanish, etc. But No one from GB. They're British and stand alone!

Not sure why.........

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You can say that any cessation of funding from the federal government will always trickle down and affect the poorest of the nation who use said programs or services, but that doesn't mean that the government, at some point, should not get out of the business of funding abortions, especially internationally.

The US doesn't need to "get out" of the business of funding abortions, here or abroad, because it hasn't had a policy of funding abortions, here or abroad, except in cases of rape, incest and health threat to the woman. This new rule doesn't even cut US tax payer funding by one penny, it just redirects it to entities that follow an arbitrary moral code that the US can't even legally enforce at home.

a reply to: windword

"For a termination to be legal in Senegal, three doctors have to certify that the woman will die unless she aborts immediately. Poor people in Senegal are lucky if they see one doctor in their lifetime, let alone three," Camara said.

"A single medical certificate costs 10,000 CFA francs ($20), which is prohibitive. We had a previous case of a raped nine-year-old who had to go through with her pregnancy. We paid for her caesarean but she died a few months after the baby was born, presumably because the physical trauma of childbirth was too great."

www.theguardian.com...

I don't know if this group gets any funding from the US or not, but let's just imagine that it does..
so, they have a little nine year old girl who was raped and became a mother to be. so, they would have probably tried to help her to go through the hoops to get the abortion.. which would have resulted in them loosing the funding, then quite possibly, with no funding they would not have been around to help her with the c-section.. and the girl would have died three months earlier than she did.