Trump attacks women rigths

US President Donald Trump has signed an order that could restrict women across the world’s access to safe abortion.

The new President reinstated the Mexico City policy as one of his first moves in the White House.

The policy enforces a ban on providing federal money to international groups that perform abortions or promote the option.

That means any US federally-funded aid group or other non-government organisation can’t assist with, recommend, give advice or provide any information when it comes to the emergency termination method.

Even without the ban in place, US-funded programs and health clinics don’t perform abortions — that’s already ruled out — but they can provide information about the option. Now with the ban, if they really want to do that, no matter who pays for it, the US government will cut them off.

The policy also prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that lobby to legalise abortion or promote it as a family planning method.
Mr Trump signed the executive order in the Oval Office, surrounded by men.

With his Vice President and staff looking on, the President sealed the deal on the “global gag rule” — there didn’t appear to be any women alongside the president when he did so.

The timing was also significant. Mr Trump signed the order the after the January 22 anniversary of the Supreme court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that legalised abortion in the United States. The date is traditionally when presidents take action on the police.

The policy has been instituted by Republican administrations and rescinded by Democratic ones since it was first introduced in 1984 by Ronald Reagan.

Most recently, former President Barack Obama ended the ban in 2009, and Mr Trump of course made it a priority to move against it.

The ban isn’t expected to decrease the number of abortions completed in developing countries, but health and activist groups say it is expected to restrict access to safe abortions and undermine the viability of groups that provide contraception and family planning options.

The World Health Organisation estimates 21.6 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for 13 per cent of all maternal deaths.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It was a global protest against Trump on "women's" rights
He has already stopped funding of 600 million that goes towards helping women world wide


Surrounded by men in the Oval Office, Trump signed a presidential memorandum that reinstates the Global Gag Rule or Mexico City Policy, forbidding US aid to go to international health organisations that counsel women on abortions.
The move will end the US Government spending about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health.


It estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in the developing world, which accounts for about 13% of all maternal deaths. 

Last year, American money helped 27 million women access contraceptives, preventing two million unsafe abortions and six million unwanted pregnancies, according to analysis by the Guttmacher Institute.

So it was Trumps position that triggered the marches like I thought.

Don't get the impression I am against ANY marches...whether they consist of millions or dozens, I don't.
I did agree with VOD's point though...I'm not sure why she was redded for it either.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

So it was Trumps position that triggered the marches like I thought.

Don't get the impression I am against ANY marches...whether they consist of millions or dozens, I don't.
I did agree with VOD's point though...I'm not sure why she was redded for it either.

I disagree with her point due to her motivations, as I am for marches against all child abuse
As you then render many victims of less worth if you are selective on child abuse crime

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I disagree with her point due to her motivations, as I am for marches against all child abuse
As you then render many victims of less worth if you are selective on child abuse crime

I don't know her motivations Thor, but I thought she made a very valid point.

Child abuse happens in many different ways, I don't see any harm in highlighting certain crimes, especially if they have been ignored for decades.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know her motivations Thor, but I thought she made a very valid point.

Child abuse happens in many different ways, I don't see any harm in highlighting certain crimes, especially if they have been ignored for decades.

But this is my point, the child abuse by the celebrities went on for decades, as well as in children's homes Syl.

So all these cases have been covered up. Then why be selective on Rotherham, and not all child abuse?
Its saying one matters more than all other victims of child abuse. When the issue is child abuse.

So to me, there is nothing valid about it,, as the point renders other victims meaningless. Even more so when her motivations stem more about who carried out the crimes than the actual victims of the abuse in Rotherham. In other words it ceases to be about the victims and is about an agenda against a group of people. Asians/Muslims.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But this is my point, the child abuse by the celebrities went on for decades, as well as in children's homes Syl.

So all these cases have been covered up. Then why be selective on Rotherham, and not all child abuse?
Its saying one matters more than all other victims of child abuse. When the issue is child abuse.

So to me, there is nothing valid about it,, as the point renders other victims meaningless. Even more so when her motivations stem more about who carried out the crimes than the actual victims of the abuse in Rotherham. In other words it ceases to be about the victims and is about an agenda against a group of people. Asians/Muslims.

I agree that child abuse has been covered up for decades here Thor, from the higher echelons of society to the man in the street.
I don't think pointing out one aspect of it is making it more important than any other....but the targeted abuse didn't only happen in Rotherham, it was countrywide...for decades, involving thousands of young girls who were specifically targeted because they were white and none Muslim.
I think that's the reason these victims are mentioned now......it was a different form of abuse, not more important not less important.
Obviously FGM happens to certain groups of girls.....that cant be covered up.

To me it's always about the victims, I cant speak for anyone else here.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

VoD claims to be a woman, and a Christian...

One would expect her to stand up for womens' rights..

Yet she speaks out against them  !

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

VoD claims to be a woman, and a Christian...

One would expect her to stand up for womens' rights..

Yet she speaks out against them  !

It depends what it is - I'm not going to protest over something that happened 10 years ago that's just a waste of time . The only reason these women are protesting is because their side lost and they are miffed .

I'm pr-life but i do agree with abortion under certain circumstances .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:Never mind they're stuck with him and I'm bored of seeing these women protesting they should be home looking after their children or doing something useful .