Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Abortion

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Abortion funding in appropriation bill

The U.S. Senate's appropriation bill that just passed goes against Trump's pro-life agenda: [1] Hopefully, the GOP will be able to pass Trump's agenda even in this area. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Trump's short-term spending deal with Democrats also failed to defund Planned Parenthood: [2] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Another worrysome appropriations bill that could reverse Trump's pro-life victories: [3] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (EDT)
Mitch McConnell withdrew the bill because of pro-life worries: [4] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2019 (EST)

Abortion in the 2017 GOP tax bill

The House version of the tax reform bill said that parents could start a college savings account for their kids upon conception, but the Senate version does not have this provision.[5] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2017 (EST)

20-week abortion ban: Trump Administration endorsement

The Trump Administration endorsed the congressional GOP effort to ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2017 (EDT)

The House passed the ban.[6] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2017 (EDT)

Down syndrome

The Trump Administration is standing up for people with Down Syndrome, including being against aborting them: [7] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2017 (EDT)

Fighting illegal immigrant abortions

The Trump Administration is fighting to prevent an illegal immigrant from having an abortion: 1,2 A federal judge is blocking the federal government, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to add this yet -- but maybe it could be added in some way or form. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

The Trump Administration is appealing the judge's ruling: [8] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2017 (EDT)
The appeals court taking up the case temporarily stopped the lower court's ruling: [9] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (EDT)
The appeals court ruled in favor of the illegal: [10] This case, if appropriate to add at all, might be more appropraite to add in the judiciary or illegal immigration subarticles. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (EDT)
Another federal judge ruled in favor of abortions for illegals: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2018 (EDT)
And yet another judge -- and this ruling is particularly ridiculous: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2018 (EDT)
I like the Trump Administration's argument in front of an appeals court, though we'll see how the court actually decides to rule: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (EDT)

DOJ investigating Planned Parenthood

The DOJ has started an investigation into Planned Parenthood due to their alleged sale of baby body parts.[12][13][14][15][16] This is very good, and this would never have happened in the previous administration -- however, this is only an investigation, so I'm inclined to not include this at least for now (btw, the FBI "investigated" Hillary Clinton, and their own documents show that the outcome was decided from the beginning). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2017 (EST)

FusionGPS was hired by Planned Parenthood to refute the Project Veritas videos. This was their big case prior to the Trump-Russia saga. Has the information been added to the Planned Parenthood, Glenn Simpson, or FusionGPS articles? There should be enough information to create well-sourced subsections in all articles, with internal links to personalities involved.
In fact, other issues arise here as well. FusionGPS likely was one of the redacted FBI contractors with access to FISA database, the ability to spy on Obama domestic opponents dating back to 2011. Confirmation of that has to wait a bit longer. But there is enough sourcing available to show FusionGPS was unleashed on abortion opponents with the animus it went after Trump and associates. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:00, 5 June 2018 (EDT)
Senators Graham and Grassley want an update on the DOJ investigation: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2019 (EDT)

Other abortion-related investiagations

The Trump HHS is investigating California and Hawaii due to their laws requiring that pro-life pregnancy centers advertise abortions: [17][18] This is probably something to add, though it might be better to see what comes out of all this, considering the pending Supreme Court case on this topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

Hopefully, the HHS will investigate Planned Parenthood's failure to report child abuse, as many conservatives are asking it to do: [19] --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (EDT)

Article "parking spot"

Here are some interesting articles that might be useful to add: 1,2,3,4,5 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2018 (EST)

Here's another article on the UN Population Fund achievement, which I'm placing here due to ref overflow: [20] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2018 (EST)
Interesting "thank you" campaign for Trump by kids saved from abortion: [21] The article almost reads like an advertisement, so I won't add it, but it's still interesting: [22] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2018 (EST)
A pro-life Roman Catholic priest, discussing, among other things, Trump's pro-life policies: [23] Not enough of the article is about Trump for me to add it, but it's still interesting to read. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2019 (EST)
Another good article about a pro-life Senate and the judiciary: [24] It's essentially discussing an interview with some pro-life activists where they discuss this, and it doesn't focus on Trump, so I probably won't add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2019 (EST)
According to this article, Trump will likely go further in campaigning against abortion: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2019 (EST)
Pro-life leaders hope Trump will publicly support heartbeat and personhood bills: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2019 (EST)
Trump privately criticized a Democrat senator for supporting abortion, which is a good sign with regard to Trump: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2019 (EST)
Articles on the Senate's rejection of a bill to ban infanticide: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2019 (EST)
Another source related to World Down Syndrome Day and Trump, which I'm adding here because it's too minor to add, IMO, and it's still the only other source I found on the topic: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (EDT)
The pro-life Gosnell movie will be screened at the White House: 1,2,3,4 --1990'sguy (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
This article is slanted toward the opposition to the administration's restrictions in fetal tissue in research, so I'm not adding it, but I'm still noting it here: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (EDT)
Republicans are calling on Trump to end funding for congressional health insurance plans that provide for abortions: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2019 (EDT)
The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of Trump's major Title X rule: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 --1990'sguy (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2019 (EDT)
The 9th Circuit again ruled in favor: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 --1990'sguy (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2019 (EDT)
I removed this now-off-topic source related to the HHS abortion funding rule: [30] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (EDT)
Some biased, but still potentially useful, sources on Trump's funding cuts to the UN Population fund: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
The 9th Circuit again allowed the rule to go into effect -- the pro-aborts are trying extremely hard to stop this rule and, apparently, have little regard for court rulings despite their stated support for "precedent": 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (EDT)
The White House stated it wants an investigation into the abortionist who kept 2,200 murdered unborn babies in his house: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2019 (EDT)
Pro-life advocates want the Trump Administration to oppose the reappointment of the OAS's leader: [31] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
Hopefully, the Trump Administration will end the hidden abortion surcharges in ObamaCare -- unfortunately, the administration hasn't acted to end them yet: [32] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
This article from last year is extremely biased against the Trump Administration and the pro-life movement, but it discusses some of the administration;s pro-life international actions: [33] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2019 (EST)
The Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of a Louisiana pro-life law: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (EST)

A potential warning sign -- a campaign spokeswoman to Trump claims he supports exceptions to pro-life legislation for rape and incest: [34] This is only one statement, and from a campaign person, not the WH or Trump himself, so this doesn't mean much at all right now. It's good to note this, still. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2019 (EDT)

This data was collected in 2017 and prior, so it's not exactly relevant to the Trump Administration, but the fall in abortion levels has been attributed to pro-life policies: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

Mexico City Policy

According to the State Department, only four of the 733 relevant NGOs receiving government funding have refused to comply with the Trump Administration's expanded Mexico City Policy (Planned Parenthood is one of them): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2018 (EST)

More related articles (as a "parking spot"): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2018 (EDT)
This op-ed is written by a Soros crony and is thus extremely biased by the Trump Administration (and probably not appropriate to add to the article because of this), but it still shows the effect of the Trump Administration's Mexico City Policy: [35] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2018 (EST)
The current spending bill doesn't fund foreign abortions as Democrats had wanted or fund radical pro-LGBT policies, but it also doesn't defund Planned Parenthood: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2019 (EST)

Abortion at the UN

The Trump Administration is taking a stronger stance on pro-life issues (as well as against LGBT "rights") at the UN, though it did give in at the end: 1,2 Hopefully, the U.S. will get even stronger leadership soon with Bolton and Pompeo. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (EDT)

Another interesting article on this: [36] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2018 (EDT)
Two interesting articles, including on the five best moments at the UN in 2017 (only one of them has to do with the Trump Administration, which is why I'm not adding the source to the article): 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2019 (EST)
This article has nothing to do with the U.S., but it says the U.S. along with several other countries had concerns about abortion-related language at some UN's Commission on the Status of Women: [37] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2019 (EDT)
Some countries want to make abortion a "humanitarian right" (and this article, very briefly, indirectly notes the U.S. has become more pro-life under Trump): [38] Also, pro-life advocates hope Trump and the congressional GOP will block a spending bill that re-funds global abortion organizations: [39] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Defunding PP

The Trump Administration is continuing to give Planned Parenthood "family planning" grants: 1,2,3 However, this appears to be only because the administration hasn't finalized a rule that will end this, so it's just a matter of time, and thus, probably OK to leave out. Also, this article on the Trump Administration's regulation on this is somewhat interesting: [40] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (EDT)

Congress is still funding PP, with funding in the defense appropriations bill: [41] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2018 (EDT)
Pro-life leaders met with Trump Administration officials to find a plan to defund PP even with a Dem House in control: [42] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2018 (EST)
Congress has given up trying to defund PP (if it ever did try): [43] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2018 (EST)
More on defunding PP now that SCOTUS has rejected some cases that could have defunded PP: [44] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (EST)
Because of the 9th circuit's approval of a Trump Administration rule on abortion, Planned Parenthood is looking for additional funds, though this might just be overreaction on the media's part: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
The State of Washington is also withdrawing from the Title X program: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2019 (EDT)
More on abortion clinics looking for more funds: [45] --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2019 (EDT)

Aborted baby parts and research

Hopefully, the HHS will stop funding the research of aborted baby parts: [46] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

The HHS canceled a single contract on that matter, but pro-life groups don't think this is enough: 1,2,3,4,5,6 Hopefully, the HHS will enact a full ban soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (EDT)
The HHS is apparently reviewing its general policy on this matter: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2018 (EDT)
Trump Administration health officials are meeting with pro-life leaders to sort this all out: [47] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2018 (EST)
An HHS official told a conservative U.S. Representative that the HHS would try to end the practice, assuming it finds alternatives: [48] Good news, but since this is only a "we'll try" statement by an official, rather than an actual policy change, I won't add it for now. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2018 (EST)
More on this: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2018 (EST)
NIH Director Francis Collins, who I have never been a fan of, supports continuing to the fund fetal tissue research: [49] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2018 (EST)
The Trump Administration approved a contract extension for researchers using human body parts of aborted late-term babies -- this might be something to add as a failure, though it's not a policy change and I probably won't add it for the time being, at least: [50] --1990'sguy (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Great article giving specific suggestions on how the Trump Administration can do more to advance a pro-life agenda -- and much of it has to do with the HHS: [51] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Trump administration reprimanding hospital

Maybe you've seen this, but the Trump administration (technically, the Trump administration’s Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and Human Services) is officially sending a Notice of Violation letter to the University of Vermont Medical Center for forcing a pro-life nurse to assist with an abortion against her conscience, under threat of losing her job (and quite possibly her career). This may not be particularly notable, but it is nice to see his people standing up for good things. [52] --DavidB4 (TALK) 17:35, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Yes, I mentioned this at Talk:Donald Trump achievements: Religious liberty, gender issues, and other social policies, as I thought it had more to do with religious freedom than abortion. Personally, it didn't seem very significant as it was a single enforcement action of a prior policy change made by the administration (and I added that policy change to the religious freedom article, I think). If you disagree, please let me know. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2019 (EDT)
Oh, I didn't think to check over there. That location does make sense, though. I wasn't aware of a specific policy about this, so I didn't know it was simply enforcement. Clearly you are keeping on top of thing better than I. All I knew was that a conservative organization (Liberty Counsel, I think) was getting ready to take legal action on her behalf, which would probably involve significant court time. This seems to somewhat nip that in the bud. Ok, yes it's probably not worth mentioning, then. Thanks for clarifying! --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:01, 7 September 2019 (EDT)

Ohio's down syndrome abortion law

This new addition does sound like a good thing. However, we should probably try to update it once they actually do defend the law, and ideally, after it is upheld. In the past, we have tried to only add things to these lists once they are done, rather than just when they are announced. Words are cheap, so it is generally the actions we want to point out here. Liberaltears, could you keep an eye on this news, and update this when the time comes? Even if the defense is unsuccessful, it might be worth noting here that they at least tried. Thanks! --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:26, 11 March 2020 (EDT)

Sure thing, DavidB4! --Liberaltears (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2020 (EDT)

Protecting doctors

Protecting doctors from being forced into performing abortions: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/06/12/president-trump-finalizes-rule-stopping-obamacare-provision-forcing-doctors-to-do-abortions --DavidB4 (TALK) 12:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

I added the detail to the page here. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 13:49, 17 June 2020 (EDT)