It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Netherlands government to counter Trump abortion funding ban

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
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.



Then why are you or anyone else upset about it?




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




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.


the funding that they are getting from the gov't is from medicaid and title x.... in the form of remimbursements for the care that is provided that is approved by those programs!!!


edit on 25-1-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

because when they talk about defunding planned parenthood, they are using the same logic... and that logic is wrong!!
they are saying that if the group that is getting their funding refers someone for an abortion, provides and abortion (not using the gov't funds to do it), or even mentions abortion as a possible option.... they will lose those funds...
heck under those rules, even some ob/gyns, probably quite a few of them, would not be able to take medicaid or title x patients!! because, sometimes, the best course of treatment, to ensure the health and well being of the mother...
is for her to abort!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The US government in no way funds abortions. The Hyde Amendment strictly prohibits the use of government funds from being used for abortions. That includes the USAID NGOs covered by the Mexico City policy.

This policy has nothing to do with funding abortions. It's all about the GOP attempting to enforce their morality on a global scale.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I meant it in a very general sense without going too deep into the consequences.

You don't wanna pay for other peoples abortion? Great

You want to open a charity to support that? Great



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi



Then why are you or anyone else upset about it?


This is why, " ....it just redirects it to entities that follow an arbitrary moral code that the US can't even legally enforce at home."

Mostly, I'm upset that people keep saying and believing that this new rule somehow curtailed US funded abortions. That's not true, wrong, false, fake news.

Secondly, I'm irritated at the hypocrisy of the religious right, using federal funds to try to leverage an arbitrary morality on the international community, by holding needy sick people hostage.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Xcalibur254

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The Donald would do well to remember that little fact as he sets out to create his brave new world


In physics yes. In many other things, not so much (or at least not necessarily).

1) One wrong word spoken to your wife, can result in hours/days/weeks of inequitable grief
2) The Rock can call me a Jackass to my face, and...well...nothing

Your argument would suggest that efforts to change things are pointless, because there will always be an equal negative effect to every positive thing we try to implement. Not so.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yes...thank you...I noted that.

Anything else to add?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Our government does not fund abortions in this country unless medically necessary or when there are extenuating circumstances.. So why is our government giving other countries money so their citizens can get abortions if they want to?

No Federal funding is supposed to be used here for abortions unless they fit the above reasons.

Who started that stupid giving other countries money for that in the first place. No wonder our National debt is so high, abortions are expensive.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



So why is our government giving other countries money so their citizens can get abortions if they want to?


They haven't and aren't.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale




Your argument would suggest that efforts to change things are pointless, because there will always be an equal negative effect to every positive thing we try to implement

The point of my comment was that Trump should realise that he lives in a dynamic world , action he takes will have knock on consequences or will be responded to in some way by other countries , sometimes with negative results.




edit on 25-1-2017 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

By telling foreign entities that, if they receive U.S. funding, that they cannot provide counseling or services promoting or causing abortions--an order that seems to exist with Republican presidents and gets rescinded by Democrat presidents--then we'll see if these entities comply, or if we cease funding them.

If the former, no amount of money will change, but if the latter, we will see a drop in spending.

But in any event, if said federal funding wasn't going to abortions at all, then why the need for the roller coaster ride of the policy? Seems to me that if my tax dollars are going to something that causes abortions (speaking only about elective abortions, from my stance), even if those dollars aren't going directly to the abortion procedures, they're helping prop up the facility that performs the abortions, regardless.

In mathematics, that's called the transitive property, and in this case, if a=b=c=d=e=f, the 'a' still equals 'f,' even if it gets there by going through 'b' and 'c' and 'd' and 'e.'



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Elections are coming up in the Netherlands. This is again a leftist person stating this.. In the Netherlands we have so many troubles and high taxes. Maybe we should not use our Dutch taxmoney to interfere with foreign countries...
Good thing is that none of our politicians ever really does what they say they will do...



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: rickymouse



So why is our government giving other countries money so their citizens can get abortions if they want to?


They haven't and aren't.




I see, Trump passed a law that made it illegal to fund overseas abortions yet they haven't been allowed to fund them for a long time already. What is the point of passing a law that isn't even needed? I read farther down on the link. Thanks for responding to my post and making me read further on it..



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

so, if a doctor, or a hospital is accepting medicaid and has a patient that they think it there would be a better outcome if she aborts, that the risk to her health, life, wellbeing, sanity, whatever, warrents at least alerting her to the risks and giving them what they believe is the best medical advice, they shouldn't be allowed to ever take a another medicaid patient with the expectation of getting reimbursement in the future? what, isn't the catholic centered hosptials taking over the healthcare system fast enough, tying enough doctors hands and forcing them to send away patients who are miscarrying their babies claiming there is nothing to be done?
just one question, just who is gonna be delivering these babies if the doctors and hospitals just decide they will give up the federal money and stop catering to the poor???



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

they can tell their supporters that they did something... lie about just what it is they did, and impress them??



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey



If the former, no amount of money will change, but if the latter, we will see a drop in spending.


Nope. The money will go Catholic charities and the like.



...then why the need for the roller coaster ride of the policy?


Every time Republicans gain office they push an evangelical/religious right agenda, and try to find ways to leverage their arbitrary morality on the masses.



Seems to me that if my tax dollars are going to something that causes abortions (speaking only about elective abortions, from my stance), even if those dollars aren't going directly to the abortion procedures, they're helping prop up the facility that performs the abortions, regardless.


What's next? Require clinics that provide abortion to be located on private land with only private road access, so that tax payer dollars don't contribute to their success by providing roads in which their patients can drive on to access them?

A hospital in Bangladesh that treats everything from malaria to staph infections, will now receive zero US funding if they allow doctors to access their facility to perform LEGAL abortions, not funded by US tax dollars, or even refer a patient to a clinic that does.

I can't imagine how anyone could rationalize that it's moral to hold sick, poverty stricken people hostage because they disapprove of the fact that women are allowed to receive safe, legal and privately paid for abortions under the same roof.

These are not American values being represented. American values protect freedom of choice, and don't elevate one religious view above others.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Trump did not just pass a law that made it illegal for US tax dollars to fund abortions broad.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




It looks like Donald Trump's international foil may be emerging. Surprisingly it's the Netherlands. Since his inauguration they have released a video trolling the new President.


They?

1) A Dutch satirical show made a vid, impersonating Trump, and mostly making fun of our own country.

2) A Dutch government official proposes to replace a part of US foreign aid.

There is no they, quit acting like there is an official Dutch policy aimed at "trolling" Trump, this is pure BS.




I have to say that if the Netherlands can keep up this troll game it should make for an entertaining four years.


How does this troll Trump?

Are you suggesting that that the Dutch government would give this money to foreign aid just to troll Trump?

Again, BS. How would he even be affected by that?


You are just making stuff up in order to create this false of notion of Trump being crossed by foreign governments.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I didn't say that--in fact, I said this, specifically:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: windword

... (speaking only about elective abortions, from my stance) ...

Everything that you mentioned appears to be medical necessity, so your response doesn't apply, at all, to what I said.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join