Abortion

Trump Brings Back Ban on Funds for Groups That Promote Abortion, While Congress Reconsiders Global Anti-Prostitution Pledge

Here we go again, and again, and again...

|

H6 Partners/Flickr

On his first Monday in office, Donald Trump signed executive orders instituting a hiring freeze for all federal government positions outside the military and reinstating a ban on international aid going to nonprofits that provide abortions or promote information on them, regardless of what other services they offer. The contentious abortion rule represents a back and forth that's been taking place under Republican and Democratic administrations since the 1980s. Known as the "Mexico City Policy," it was instituted under President Ronald Reagan, reversed by Bill Clinton, restored by George W. Bush, and again reversed by Barack Obama.

Not to be confused with the 1973 Helms Amendment, which bans groups from using U.S. government funds directly for abortion services abroad, the Mexico City Policy targets broader conduct, requiring that "as a condition of their receipt of federal funds," groups must agree to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

A diverse group of more than 100 public health, women's issues, and civil liberties organizations have already issued a statement opposing the return of the Mexico City Policy, which they refer to as "the global gag rule." "The global gag rule … interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by restricting medical information healthcare providers may offer, limits free speech by prohibiting local citizens from participating in public policy debates, and impedes women's access to family planning by cutting off funding for many of the most experienced health care providers who chose to prioritize quality reproductive-health services and counseling over funding that restricts care and censors information," it says. Groups endorsing the statement include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Amnesty International USA, the National Organization for Women, the Alliance to End Slavery & Trafficking, the Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation, the International Medical Corps, New York University's Global Justice Clinic,and Human Rights Campaign.

The Mexico City Policy is one of several federal aid conditions that have been contingent on controversial social issues. Since 2003, the U.S. has banned groups that get grants to fight HIV/AIDs and/or human trafficking from supporting the decriminalization of prostitution. Referred to as the anti-prostitution pledge, the policy was proposed for anti-HIV groups as part of Bush's "Emergency Plan for AIDs Relief," passed by Congress in May 2003 as the "United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act." It stipulated that no grant money could be used "to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking" nor to "provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."

The anti-prostitution pledge was also part of the bipartisan 2003 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which stated that no federal money "may be used to promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution" and no funds "may be used to implement any program" by an organization that "has not stated in either a grant application, a grant agreement, or both, that it does not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution."

Many public-health and human-rights groups opposed these policies on the grounds that decriminalizing prostitution is often supported as a means to stop the spread of sexually-transmitted infections and sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. The pledge was initially applied only to foreign nonprofits, but in 2005 the Bush administration began applying it to U.S. groups, too.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the part of the pledge requiring anti-HIV/AIDs groups to explicitly denounce prostitution was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment. "This case … is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding," wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.. The problem with the second part of the rule was that it didn't just put limits on "the activities Congress wants to subsidize" but sought "to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself."

Despite this ruling, the Obama administration continued to apply the anti-prostitution pledge to international groups, prompting another round of legal battles. These culminated in a 2015 Supeme Court case stipulating that the rule couldn't be enforced domestically or internationally.

This year, U.S. Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Illinois) is reintroducing previously failed legislation to insert a different sort of anti-prostitution pledge into federal law. Each year, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) issues a "Trafficking in Persons" report to assess how well other countries are doing at fighting sex and labor trafficking and uses these grades to assess which countries we will do which sorts of business with or bestow aid upon. Hultgren's bill would require DOS to look at what countries are doing to end "demand" for prostitution more broadly—not just combat forced prostitution—via the implementation "serious and sustained efforts" to target commercial-sex clients and to criminalize the sex trade overall.

The measure, called the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, "affirms that if the government of a country has the authority to restrict or prohibit the purchase of commercial sex acts and fails to do so, it would be deemed a failure on the part of that government to make a serious and sustained effort to reduce the demand for commercial sex acts despite other efforts it may be undertaking to fight human trafficking." It is co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Chris Smith (New Jersey) and Carolyn Maloney (New York) and Republican Reps. Chris Smith (New Jersey), Robert Pittenger (North Carolina), Alex Mooney (West Virginia), Brett Guthrie (Kentucky), and Tim Walberg (Michigan).

NEXT: Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In other news, Trump withdraws from the TPP deal.

    1. Trans pacific people hardest hit.

    2. Where is that article?

    3. Trump tells business leaders he wants to cut regulations by 75% or ‘maybe more’

      http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23…..-more.html

      I found the actual libertarian moment!!

      1. At the current rate of regulating, that simply means that he is going to stop administrative rule-making for six weeks.

      2. No, being able to make your own cosplay accessories on a 3d printer is the libertarian moment– provided you filled out the permission slips in triplicate.

      3. Eh. “Cut regulations by X%” is government-speak for “cut the net increase regulations by X% of what it would have been without our ‘cuts’.” With only the government’s word that we would have gotten even more expansion without it.

        Like Trump’s foreign policy, I’ll applaud it when I see it. Until then, the last two liars have left me to jaded to trust anything a president says until they back it up.

    4. Did he repeal the Hughes Amendment yet?

      Cause this is prolly our last chance.

      1. Or disband the BATFE FFS. Or turn it into a shopping experience.
        “You can get your vape juice, bourbon and m433’s in one stop! It’ll be phenomenal. You’ll say ‘stop it. I can’t handle all these high explosive rounds.”
        It’ll be awesome.

        1. I’m serious.

  2. So…Loss/Win, ENB?

  3. “interferes with the doctor-patient relationship”

    Something that we can be certain 100% of Democrats in Congress don’t give a fuck about.

  4. Pay for your own God-damned fucking abortion, you pink pussy.

    1. O k…let’s start the Mikey M game- I’ll go first.(I like you ENB, don’t let this get you down)
      Atleastit’s Notgoing Down

    2. It’s so cute when Mikey’s little feathers get ruffled.

      1. I don’t think he likes pink pussies…NTTAWWT.

      2. It undermines legitimate disagreement with ENB.

        1. True.

        2. No, it makes Mikey look like a moron.

          1. That’s true too.

  5. These organizations are free to stop taking U.S. taxpayer money if they no longer want to be confined by these restrictions.

    1. This. It is all about the money

      1. It is a metric for something or another.

    2. No, I don’t think you understand. If we don’t give them money and let them do whatever they want with our money, it’s a violation of their civil liberties. That’s why civil liberties groups are opposed.

    3. People who can’t deal with this can donate directly to UNFPA. It’s just a lot easier for them to blame Amurka for everything. “We sell our 9-year-old daughters to older men to deflower after performing genital mutilations on them, and believe that sex with virgins cures AIDS, but when the babies come, why, that’s America’s fault.”

  6. “The global gag rule … interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by restricting medical information

    I wish the pro-choiceabortion forces would be more honest in this regard. Because interfering in the doctor-patient relationship is central to almost everything they believe. It’s too bad Republicans have no issue with interfering in that relationship, because they really could beat the left around the head and shoulders on this issue.

  7. “The global gag rule … [1] interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by restricting medical information healthcare providers may offer, [2] limits free speech by prohibiting local citizens from participating in public policy debates, and [3] impedes women’s access to family planning by cutting off funding for many of the most experienced health care providers who chose to prioritize quality reproductive-health services and counseling over funding that restricts care and censors information,” it says.”

    [3] may be legitimate, but it looks to me like [1] and [2] are bogus.

    Those people can do whatever they want–they just can’t do it and take taxpayer money.

    “Free speech” doesn’t give public school administrators the right to lead prayer or teach creationism either.

    And how do we feel about The Citadel being compelled to admit women–or forego taxpayer funding?

    1. Not funding something =/= impeding access to that something, so [3] isn’t legit either.

      1. Not giving is taking, not taking is giving, etc etc

  8. Before we get sidetracked with talk of politicians whipsawing laws for four decades and the ethics of government grant money that does or does not prevent the free speech and/or promotes medical procedures for non-medical purposes and/or violates the right to life/sanctity of human autonomy, I’ve got a question.

    Why am I paying for this in the first place?

    1. We’re all in this together, bro. You don’t remember signing up when you popped out?

      1. Your signature is implied with birth.

        1. +1 Social Contract whether you want it or not.

    2. “Why am I paying for this in the first place?”

      It’s out of fear and a sense of powerlessness.

      1. Because killing brown babies is a form of virtue-signalling?

        1. I think mostly people are worried about themselves.

          If you don’t pay for this stuff, they’ll send guys with guns to lock up in a cage, and they’ll confiscate what you have to auction off–and pay for this stuff anyway.

          Fear and powerlessness, that’s why we’re paying for this stuff in the first place.

    3. You’re paying for it because American values spread across the globe make the world a better place.

      1. American values like taxpayer funded abortion!

    4. Why am I paying for this in the first place?

      How many of y’all are actually net taxpayers?

      1. Raises hand emphatically. Need to start an AMT victims survivor group.

      2. A group of people complaining about taxes and entitlement spending are likely to pay taxes.

        Not that a recipient of public largesse couldn’t be against such things. It’s just that, in reality, they generally aren’t.

        1. Nah, we’ve all just been brainwashed by the Kochtopus and their evul corporashun mind control beam.

        2. A group of people complaining about taxes and entitlement spending are likely to pay taxes.

          No, they’re likely to think they do.

      3. Everyone pays for it at the end of the day. You can’t hoover up record amounts of massive tax revenues while only bothering a tiny portion of the population. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

        1. But you may well be the one eating the nonfree lunch.

          1. That doesn’t make sense. A non-free lunch is one that you pay for. Going with response tactic B.

            NO YOU’RE A FREE LUNCH.

            1. Do you understand what “net” means?

              1. I feel as if I’m not getting your full effort today. Are you distracted? Let’s talk.

        2. Sen Sanders: “Oh.”

        1. 40% wrote to an elected official in the past 12 months

          Slackers!

        2. So we’re into self-reported surveys now.

          And that’s for the print mag, which most commenters seem proud not to subscribe to.

          And of course net worth tells you nothing about taxable income.

          1. So we’re into self-reported surveys now.

            When the alternative is some speculative fiction you pulled out of your ass, then yes. 1 data point is better than zero.

            And of course net worth tells you nothing about taxable income.

            Because the idle rich don’t pay taxes and also use lots of government resources.

            Fuck off Tulpa.

      4. Oh my goodness. Clearly as CISgender male european shitlord I pay loads of taxes. You need to be in higher stratosphere of shitlordiness to not be paying.

      5. Is this some kind of dig at people that are government employees?

        I’d be willing to bet that most commenters here, even the retarded leftist are net taxpayers.

        1. You think a bunch of people getting mortgage tax deductions and sending multiple kids to government schools are net taxpayers?

          1. Wealther people have fewer children to send to government schools, and are more likely to send the children they do have to private schools despite paying taxes to support public schools. That’s why it’s so important to give US government rubbers to the darkies in poor countries. Pick a narrative and go with it for fuck’s sake.

            Also, fuck off Tulpa.

  9. How about just ending all foreign aid?

    I forget who said it but “taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries” is about right.

    1. We give Mexico some $400 million a year in various kinds of aid because if we didn’t, we might have illegal immigrants streaming across our borders.

    2. It’s the only way to save the planet.

    3. There’s a massive vested interest in keeping the gravy train going. That won’t be easy to crack. But maybe Trump can do it because he’s willing to step on some toes.

    4. How about just ending all foreign aid?

      I forget who said it but “taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries” is about right.

      If you back up several seconds you’ll hear Paul say something with which you began your comment.

    5. You can’t stop foreign aid now! Just a couple more years of aid, and Africa won’t be a war-torn shithole anymore. I promise, really. Just a few more years.

  10. …reinstating a ban on international aid going to nonprofits that provide or promote abortions, regardless of what other services they offer.

    What other services, generally, do they offer? What percentage of their business is family planning? What is their general efficacy in the other services they offer? I am thinking these NGO’s need to do some cost/benefit analysis to see if the handouts are worth changing their practices, but overall I’m curious whether or not the US taxpayer getting much bang for his buck here anyway.

    1. Looking at the birthrates in countries that ‘need humanitarian assistance,’ I assume the family planning side of things isn’t very effective.

      I have no idea why we’re paying for that anyway. Exporting planned parenthood doesn’t really seem like it should be a national priority.

  11. Known as the “Mexico City Policy,” it was instituted under President Ronald Reagan, reversed by Bill Clinton, restored by George W. Bush, and again reversed by Barack Obama.

    Government!

    1. These are the things we do together. We just happen to be a bit schizophrenic.

  12. What happened to the old libertarian position on social issues: “if I don’t have to pay for it, who cares?”. Now it seems to be: “if you don’t want to pay for it than you’re a monster!”.

    What a perverse brand of ‘libertarianism’ Reason is pimping.

    1. Yep. It is basically libertarian of whatever i like government doing.

      As someone mentioned above just stop taking funds and you can promote abortion. A lot of rich liberals to pick up the slack.

      These aid groups are really just pigs feeding at the trough

      1. Eddie,
        Change your name back.

        1. It’s confusing fer sure.

        2. When I change my handle I announce it in advance.

          I’m not American Socialist or american socialist or american socialliste or any variant thereof.

    2. reason.com

      “SJW minds and fuck free markets”

    3. Now it seems to be: “if you don’t want to pay for it than you’re a monster!”.

      Is that what the piece said? Sheesh, I have to re-read.

    4. What happened to the old libertarian position on social issues: “if I don’t have to pay for it, who cares?”. Now it seems to be: “if you don’t want to pay for it than you’re a monster!”.

      This was just a news article. I didn’t see any value judgments one way or another.

      1. This was just a news article. I didn’t see any value judgments one way or another.

        thank you

      2. This was just a news article. I didn’t see any value judgments one way or another.

        How quaint! This is the Reason comments, where we read minds and whine over and over and over again.

        Get it together, Penguin.

        1. I’m behind the times, Crusty.

          I can understand some of the criticism of some of the writers here, but a lot of the criticism is overwrought bullshit. I think a lot of commenters have too much experience with really slanted news and read into things that aren’t there.

          ENB – no problem.

          1. Or, they just really like whining all the time.

            1. If there’s one thing I like to whine about all the time it’s people who whine all the time.

      3. This was a news article? Seems like something as insignificant as the Mexico City Policy (it has gone back and forth since the Reagan era) would be in the Hit & Run section and not a piece on its own.

        1. An article on the Mexico City Policy is more newsworthy on a supposed ‘libertarian’ site than a federal government hiring freeze or freezing administrative rules?

          Nice priorities

          1. “Write what I want you to write about and in the way I want you to write about or there’s going to be another tantrum!”

            1. Hey, he came here to complain, and complain he will.

            2. Yeah, sorry, I thought shrinking the size and scope of government was just, you know, more important than taxpayer funded abortions.

              1. If you had read the post, you’d know it wasn’t about taxpayer-funded abortions, wouldn’t you?

                1. Oh, I guess I missed the part where it says it restricts funds to groups who perform abortions or advertise such services. Sounds kind of like preventing funds from going to abortion providers. Not really getting where you’re going here

          2. ENB writes about sex topics and their intersection with public policy. That’s her beat, and why she focused on it rather than the other Trump policy.

            I would be very surprised if H&R doesn’t have an article on the hiring freeze by the end of the day.

            1. Already up, but it’s not fawning, so it must be a product of…TDS!

            2. Right, don’t you think that freezing hires and administrative rules should have had its own article instead of an insignificant executive order that has become a political football? The Mexico City Rule should be in H&R- not something more significant like a federal government hiring freeze.

            3. My guess would be Fisher or Welch. I’m looking forward to it.

              1. SF – like I said, I’m behind the times.

                Just Say’n – are you a troll? If not, you really might want to start reading things twice before you respond, as you’ve replied to things no one has said a few times in this thread alone.

                HoD – Bailey

                1. SF – like I said, I’m behind the times.

                  I prefer to think of you as “vintage.”

                  “Vintage commenter BakedPenquin notes…”

                  1. HoD – Bailey

                    Yeah. I didn’t see that one coming. Paul linked to a really good read by 2Chili though, so it wasn’t a total loss.

                2. I was responding to this:

                  “ENB writes about sex topics and their intersection with public policy. That’s her beat, and why she focused on it rather than the other Trump policy.

                  I would be very surprised if H&R doesn’t have an article on the hiring freeze by the end of the day.”

                  I’m not sure what I’m responding to that nobody said.

    5. Yep. I sure miss the days when Reason was mostly real libertarians and not a bunch of Obama-worshippingpink pussies.

      1. Keep fighting the good fight, Mikey.

      2. I would lament your sad decline into madness and irrelevancy, but you were never relevant and always mad.

      3. Mike,
        You take legitimate concerns and retard fuck them to death. Your frothing at the mouth is paid the same amount of attention as Tony, Amsoc, Addictionmyth/Dajaal/Shreek.

  13. the global gag rule.

    Which was also my nickname in college.

  14. End international aid and the problem goes away.

    1. If America can’t bring civilization to the natives, what can we do?

      1. Be a shining city on a hill for them to emulate?

      2. Murder drone them?

    2. Wait, save money and end all the BS controversies, etc?

      THAT IS CRAZY TALK!

  15. I don’t know whether Trump’s actions will be good or bad for me, America, or the world, but he must be making a bunch of conservatives who held their noses and voted for him in November pretty damn happy.

    Of course, the fact that he has enough power to do any of this stuff (besides abandoning negotiations or attempts at ratification on TPP) speaks to the idea that maybe (just maybe) constraints on executive action would be a good idea.

    1. I am also enjoying the Trump administrations application of deconstructionist philosophy to press conferences. The news media seem quite surprised that their assertions in absence of evidence can be used by the other party. Again, is it good for society? I don’t know, but I’m going to worry about that when I have a larger sample.

    2. I did not vote for him and share a lot of the concerns about him that many people do, but the fucking leftist bs is pushing me towards him. I kind of want him to fuck something up real good so I can go back to letting the hate flow.

      1. Hate both sides….it is the libertarian way!

        *shakes fist at cloud*

        1. The bi-partisan clouds obscure your gesticulations by glowering a haze upon you.

  16. In other news, Mexico City has issued a statement requesting that we quit dragging their name into our abortion debates.

    1. Maybe they should have picked a more creative name than [Country] City.

      1. They did. It was Tenochtitlan. But then the white devils appeared.

        1. Whoa.

  17. Despite this ruling, the Obama administration continued to apply the anti-prostitution pledge to international groups,

    Checks and balances…eventually?

  18. Progs like abortion globally for eugenics purposes

    1. Eliminate people before they want to cross our open border. Win-win.

    2. Eddie,
      Change your name back. It’s no longer funny.

  19. A federal hiring freeze – yeah!

    Now a whole lot of “you’re fired’s”? Please?

  20. This is a libertarian website. ENB shouldn’t be reporting news about the Mexico City Policy at all.

    1. Except how much is costs.

    2. We also shouldn’t have “journalists” that literally cried after the election results. *shrugs

  21. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the part of the pledge requiring anti-HIV/AIDs groups to explicitly denounce prostitution was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment. “This case … is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr..

    Huh? The whole point of giving away “free” money is to support something you believe in. Every freaking dollar that FedGov so kindly returns to the states comes with strings.

    I guess this is why I’m not a Constitutional scholar, because this makes no sense to me.

    1. Yea social engineering and also money to special interests which in turn fund your campaign

  22. To the prog: NOT Paying for someone else’s abortion is DENYING THEM ACCESS!

    Okay how about you fucking pay for my rifle and ammunition.

    1. You shouldn’t have those things anyway. But you are responsible for the crack whore down the street who keeps getting knocked up. Acknowledge your privilege and pay up!

    2. Well, it was God’s Own Prohibitionists that passed the Harrison Act. This coerced all doctors into agreeing with government bureaucrats on prohibition edicts OR ELSE they were handed felony indictments–the medical equivalent of disbarment for ambulance-chasers. TO this day whenever Die Ewige Staat wants to ban or coerce, physicians are the “most useful dogs” to justify the initiation of deadly force. In exchange, the gubmint hands them a bottleneck against competition so they can charge cartel prices. So access to medical care is denied by mystical bigot politicians using pseudoscience to justify coercion in the marketplace. Said coercion is a health hazard because the planet is the same size it was when there was no papacy, but the population is 7 billion and increasing vertically. Also, an enactment to deny rights to women only is illegal under the same Amendment that begins: “All persons born…”

      1. Well, it was God’s Own Prohibitionists that passed the Harrison Act.

        The 63rd congress was controlled by Democratic majorities in both houses. Inane, retarded, historically illiterate: please pick only two.

  23. So for federal employees i dont think anyone can run on firing say half of them.

    If i was running for potus i would campaign on since the federal employees are dedicated servants to public, they would get all 12 weeks of vacation.

    Not ideal but at least they would have less time to screw things up. Probably best to pay them to sit at home until retirement and dont rehire

    1. “Probably best to pay them to sit at home until retirement and dont rehire”

      This is the most reasonable thing you’ve ever written.

      What to do with all the useless bureaucrats after we get rid of them is a libertarian conundrum. After you’ve been working for the government for ten years, you’ve got such a shitty attitude, nobody in their right mind would hire you. They resist our efforts to get rid of them specifically because they know they’re worthless on the open job market, too.

      There isn’t anything they’re particularly good at, either. Their one saving quality is their meticulousness (see the GEICO founding story) , but you know what else is meticulous? A really short shell script–and half of them could probably be easily replaced with a really short shell script.

      I saw we buy them out. We can’t leave their useless asses to walk around in circles on the National Mall until they starve to death–because it would discourage tourism.

    2. Good idea. All these morons in the military can kill 12/52nds less peasants in the ME. A reduction of almost 25%!

  24. On his first Monday in office, Donald Trump signed executive orders instituting a hiring freeze for all federal government positions outside the military

    Here we have the rare burying of the lede by leading with it.

    As for the rest, I fail to find the provision of the Constitution that empowers Congress to spend money on “nonprofits that provide or promote abortions” overseas, so I’m not shedding any tears about that.

    1. He’s got the union all riled up. Let’s see what they do when he signs the Executive Order taking away their bargaining rights (how they got them in the first place).

      1. That would probably be the single most greatest thing he could do, unless he could also do the same for the drug war.

    2. War power. Pre-emptive strike against potential enemy nations, reduce available manpower for their armies.

  25. You think this rule change is about limited government? Hah… yeah, right.

    How about this sign for the Right to Life march next weekend: “I’m going to urge my wife to abort our 8.5 month old baby, harvest the body parts, and sell them on EBay to the highest bidder. Come talk with me.”

    1. Since when do you think lying, exaggerating, or otherwise engaging in intellectual dishonesty is unacceptable? It’s all you’ve got, how can you begrudge others for doing the same?

  26. Trump: I will execute the Easter Bunny.

    1. It’s about time the Trumpocalypse got rolling. Executing the Easter Bunny is a pretty rad start.

    2. But…but…we can still get Cabury eggs, right?!!!

        1. Bunnies provide meat for your pan and fur for your han(d).

      1. They’re going to have a picture of Trump on them.

        1. “You’re gonna love my eggs, really.”

    3. Jesus is the reason for the season.

  27. It might help to explain to Teddy Roosevelt Progressives and God’s Own Prohibitionists that the Helms Amendment is ‘Murrican Race Suicide writ large.
    Also, Canada has NO (as in zero) abortion laws whatsoever. So why hasn’t Ghawd sent the Angel with the 4-way sword to fling Canada bodily off the face of the Earth?

    1. Because Ghawd doesn’t exist. God, OTOH, sent his only son to be born in a manger, skip 30 or so years, be crucified on a cross and then resurrected by God to forgive all the people their earthly sons. True story.

      1. A California socialist going on about jeebus. You’re totally not a troll for sure.

        1. After all we’ve been through, you are calling me a troll? Sad.

    2. Because no one, not even gawd, cares about Canada. Even the progs won’t move there for crikey sake.

      1. Not cool Hyperion, not cool.

    3. Also, Canada has NO (as in zero) abortion laws whatsoever.

      Do they pay for it with government money?

      1. Yep, through Medicare.

        1. Then it sounds like Canada has at least one abortion law, authorizing the government to pay for them.

          1. Semantics.

  28. Too easy

  29. Essential libertarian “just a damned minute here” aside, this was a really fine article. Well sourced, lots of fodder for thinky thoughts. The Mexico City Policy is bang on topic for libertarians, and more non-libertarians should hear about it in regards to the stupid things our stupid government does for stupid reasons.

    1. “Oohhh look at me I actually read the article.” Gross.

  30. Hey folks i was able to acquire the real american socialist with an ell because he dropped it for california socialist

    It will now be retired.

    1. Can I switch back now? You were pissing everyone off. Not me… I love you.

      1. Eddie and AmSoc
        Sitting in a tree
        R-E-T-A-R-D

        1. Like I said above, when I change my handle I announce it in advance, so I’m not any of these amsoc variants.

      2. Nope.

        Unless you want the amsock one with an eye. That is still free

        I confiscated your ell and not giving it back. Like a true socialist

        1. You will just confuse people then

          1. Mommy, it’s doing that thing again!

  31. *slowly backs out of thread*

    1. This was the most reasonable abortion thread… ever? Probably because it’s not really about abortion.

    2. to the sound of applause…

  32. I would say that if you are for having the government get involved in a decision about whether a mother should have a child you are not a libertarian.

    1. The topic was abortion, not conception. Do try again.

  33. It’s appalling that feminists are so pro-abortion that they insist tax dollars be used for it.

    These two things can exist in perfect harmony:
    1) The freedom to abort an unwanted pregnancy
    2) No public funds to support abortion due to the recognition that a significant portion of the tax-payer populace considers it profoundly immoral

    Why must public funds for abortion be the holy grail for women’s rights?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.