Forth And Back


Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 13.04.29Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 12.46.39

Further to US President Donald Trump, above, reinstating an executive order that will block US federal funding from going to international NGOs that provide abortion services, or “actively promote” the same – even when US funds are not specifically used to that end…

A policy that has been rescinded and reinstated by the different US administrations since first announced in 1984 (see table above)…

Politico reports:

The decision to reinstate — and significantly expand — the Republican policy known as the “Mexico City policy,” or the “global gag rule,” was delivered a day after the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion and two days after the Women’s March on Washington and similar events across the country drew crowds to rally for reproductive rights, among other issues.

The new policy would prohibit any federal aid to foreign organizations that provide or promote abortion…

“The intent is to extend the policy to apply not just to family planning assistance but to global health, including PEPFAR and maternal health,” said Jennifer Kates, vice president and director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, who added that the full scope of the policy isn’t yet known.

She estimated that when the policy has been applied in the past, it covered about $600 million in foreign aid spending. The new policy could potentially cover up to $8 billion.

Trump revives funding ban to groups providing abortion overseas (

Top image: The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer (KFF)

52 thoughts on “Forth And Back

  1. King Henry Woodes

    Where will the Repealthe8th cult get their funding now?
    Is George Soros still funding their campaigns in Ireland?

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      Why shouldn’t a foreign philanthropist donate to women’s health movements? Foreign interference from the US and the Vatican has funded the shower of women killing, antichoice cults.

  2. Daisy Chainsaw

    Back to coathangers, knitting needles, falling downstairs and dangerous back street abortionists.

    Sure, it’s only women isn’t it? It’s not like their health and welfare matters to Pussy Grabber in Chief.

    1. Kieran NYC

      But something something emails and pizzagate and I saw Lizzie Procter speaking with the devil!

  3. Starina

    this is a demonstration of power, a punishment for all those nasty women who marched against him.

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      I’d say the “abortion gives you cancer and child abuse” services are applying for their funding now.

    2. newsjustin

      So was it also a demonstration of power each time it was removed or reinstated in the past? Or just this time cos there was a march?

      1. Starina

        varies from administration to administration. Some are driven by God-bothering. Some, like Trump, are driven by tiny egos and megalomania. When it’s removed it’s driven by scientific research and, you know, humanity.

        1. newsjustin

          I see. “God bothering” and blaming Trump (who’s a clown btw) rests easier I guess, rather than having to think about why other people don’t think abortion is as good as you do.

          1. newsjustin

            Starina – I think it’s that Republicans are generally against abortion and Democrats are general OK with it – though that’s a big generality. Whatever the ectual merits of the legislation, it appears to be a bellwether in the abortion debate.

            It’s just interesting that you automatically assume that it is always repealed for the best possible motives and implemented for the worst. And, in particular, that Trump was so offended by a march that he reinstated it as punishment. Now Trump is crazy, so anything is possible, but given the legislations track record, it seems more likely that it comes and goes as people who are less or more in favour of abortion come into office.

          2. Starina

            have you never questioned what is the ideology behind the party lines? again, we’re back to imposition of religious belief, etc.

          3. newsjustin

            You clearly haven’t Starina, as you seem to believe that an anti-abortion stance can only be because one is religious or because one is Donald Trump.

          4. Starina

            that’s a twisting of my words. i was clearly giving examples, as demonstrated by the words ‘varies from’ and ‘some’. nice try, hun

          5. Nigel

            I love the way it’s the supposed motivation being disputed so passionately by newser rather than the sheer radical cold-blooded horror of the act.

          6. newsjustin

            I can debate the “sheer radical cold-blooded horror” of abortion all day Nigel. But I’m just querying some of what Starina said.

          7. Nigel

            Course you were. Easier than debating the ramifications of this and the defunding of Planned Parenthood by the ‘clown’ you turned into an apologist for. Come to think of it, always were. But I guess we don’t want anyone discussing the possibility of an abortion with, eg, young girls raped by ISIS. You turd.

          8. Daisy Chainsaw

            Republicans are “family values” when it comes to their wives and daughters. It’s okay when the mistress has to have an abortion because you can’t have evidence of your affair running around, or you pay for your son’s girlfriend to have one because future Senator/Congressman can’t have a child out of wedlock to that sort of socially unacceptable girl when there’s a Trust Fund Bitsy to be had.

            Republican conservatism is all about the men and It’s easier to control women if you limit their access to birth control, and reproductive education. Democrats are more liberal and less into control and sexism.

          9. Neil is a gum

            Not to mention the fact that Republicans helped elect a man who is quoted saying he loves to grab girls by the pussy. This is literally what newstwistin supports.

          10. Nigel

            Oh, hey, he’s signed an executive order to advance the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines and Republicans have closed down the inquiry into the water quality in Flint. He’s frozen federal hiring and all grants and contracts for the EPA. The CRA was struck down before the elections and the ACA is being dismantled. Comey is being kept on as head of the FBI. ‘Alternative facts’ are an actual thing said by this administration. But he’s a ‘clown.’ Pennywise the feckin’ clown.

          11. newsjustin

            I was wondering how long it would take for “you’re not pro-choice, you must be a Trump supporter” to be added to the lexicon of insults around here.

            Also, if you actually believe that Trump is pro-life, you may be crazier than he is.

          12. Nigel

            What does his attitude to abortion have to do with you being pro-Trump? Of course you’re pro-Trump. I accept that being anti-Trump made me effectively pro-Clinton, whatever I really thought about her. You’re to much of a coward to admit it, that’s all, or too ashamed that when push came to shove you wanted to target a flawed woman over a profoundly hateful man, and now that you got what you wanted and the woman lost, you were, in some tiny infinitesimal way, on the man’s side.

            Trump has gagged all the scientists working for the Department of Agriculture.

            Trump’s already carried out his first drone strike.

          13. jusayinlike

            Ethically speaking no.. corrupt judiciaries have always found ways around that though unfortunately

          14. mildred st. meadowlark

            That’s hideous, but, sadly, not surprising.

            Thanks though. I was afraid it was a stupid question :)

          15. jusayinlike

            Finland v Russia, Vietnam v USA, France, Russia, Portugal

            All morally fought wars. But tbf there’s never really a winner in war when all is said and done

          16. newsjustin

            I’m really not sure why you think I’m a Trump supporter. Have you read any of my comments (infrequent tbf) on the topic?

            Maybe you could tell me why?

          17. jusayinlike

            Its what he does, try to abnormalise you, he’s no argument, just throws dictionaries, pathetic

          18. Nigel

            FECK. newsjustin, I am really, really sorry. I had you confused with feckin’ jusayinlike. I even thought to myself that his syntax had improved suddenly. I withdraw almost everything, I disagree with you but I don’t find you as contemptible as my comments might have suggested. If jusayinlike is reading, that was all for you. So sorry, newsjustin. Um. Repeal the Eighth!

          19. Nigel

            Comparing jusainlike’s subliterate thrashing with newsjustin’s comments, I’m more embarrassed than ever at the confusion. Sorry again newsjustin.

          20. Lorcan Nagle

            >>mildred st. meadowlark

            Is any war legal? Genuine question, that.<<

            Most countries have a legal mechanism whereby they can declare war, usually a vote of elected representatives – Ireland can go to war with the assent of the Dáil according to our constitution.

            There's a fair bit in international law about when and how a nation can declare and conduct a war justifiably. The Hague Conventions from (first signed in 1899, last signed in 1907) form the bulk of these, while the Geneva Conventions (first signed in 1864, last signed in 1949) cover the humanitarian treatment of people in time of war. The US used some of these regulations – notably that a legitimate soldier will be wearing a uniform – to declare that irregular fighters were "enemy insurgents" rather than soldiers and as such were not eligibile for various protections the Geneva Conventions provide

            Since 1945, the formal declaration of war has become less common, with only 15 declared wars since then, most of them being in Western Asia or East Africa, and the rest being a smaller nation delcaring war on a larger one to claim legal protection or the moral high ground.

            The UN Charter states that no member shall use force or the threat of force in international relations, and as such most nations go to the UN security council for a resolution authorising the use of force instead of formally declaring war.

    1. Lorcan Nagle

      A bill allowing the US to leave the UN has actually been introduced in Congress – though it’s not expected to pass.

Comments are closed.