MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Purportedly Planning Grant Ban for Groups That Don't Disavow Abortion: Reason Roundup

Plus: newsstand "porn passes" offer privacy in the U.K., and why "extreme vetting" of immigrants has failed

ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN/REUTERS/NewscomILANA PANICH-LINSMAN/REUTERS/NewscomNo grants for groups that "support" abortion. The U.S. already prevents federal funding from covering abortion services. Now the Trump administration may cut off any group that so much as talks about abortion.

On Friday, Donald Trump is expected to announce plans to resurrect an old rule prohibiting federal grant money from going to any group that even discusses abortion as an option for pregnant women. The rule would also prohibit funds from going to health clinics or organizations that share a space or affiliation with an abortion provider, according to what White House officials have told the AP and other news outlets.

The rule was first drafted under President Ronald Reagan, but it was never implemented and was withdrawn by President Bill Clinton. Then as now, doctors and health groups noted that abortion is a legal medical procedure and argued that making family planning grants contingent on pretending it's not an option represents a serious interference in doctor-patient relationships. "I cannot imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged," Jessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association told the AP.

Some libertarians will inevitably argue in favor of the move on the grounds that anything that cuts federal spending is good. But that rests on a faulty premise, since the change doesn't signal one cent of a reduction in federal funds overall. It would simply shift who is eligible to receive the money and how free their speech can be.

To the extent that this means more unintended pregnancies and more undesired births, we could actually see a net increase in federal expenditures on health care and family planning. There's no way this move is really a fiscally conservative one. For most pushing the change, it's about religious doctrine or morality.

And for Trump? Winning would seem to be one prominent motive. "In addition to the policy implications," notes NBC, "the decision is a monumental signal by President Donald Trump to anti-abortion activists entering a mid-term election cycle in which Republicans are worried that they will lose seats in Congress—and perhaps control of one or both chambers—because of a lack of enthusiasm within the GOP base."

In this case, it doesn't matter if the policy has a chance of succeeding, just that Trump is perceived as being on the same page as his anti-abortion supporters.

There's still a possibility that the Trump administration will hold out on them, however. Contra most other outlets, NBC is reporting that the White House "will stop short of giving abortion foes one provision they sought: a gag rule prohibiting recipients from discussing abortion with pregnant women."

According to NBC's source, the rule change will only apply to groups "that perform abortions, support the procedures or receive referrals about them." But that language is way too ambiguous to offer much reassurance that this isn't creating a sort of viewpoint-based determination on whether abortion can be discussed in these settings.

FREE MINDS

U.K. porn scheme grows ever more complicated. In the wake of the U.K.'s new rule requiring age verification for all online porn viewers, the government is proposing a workaround that would let audiences opt out of handing their personal data to porn sites. Instead, they can pick up a "porn pass" at their local newsstand or corner shop (presumably without the shopkeeper storing a record of the customers' IDs after checking their ages, or else the whole rigmarole would be pretty pointless).

"Trench coats are coming back!" quips Tim Cushing at Techdirt. "Somewhat of an ironic turn of events, given how much government effort was expended trying to limit the amount of public porn consumption by shutting down theaters and heavily regulating distribution of pornography." Now, "instead of heading to porn shops in shady areas of town, porn consumers will be headed to newspaper kiosks to publicly announce their desire to consume porn in the privacy of their own homes." Or so the U.K. government hopes.

QUICK HITS

Photo Credit: ILANA PANICH-LINSMAN/REUTERS/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign.

    Who needs a spy for Trump? He's pretty transparent.

  • ||

    "No grants for groups that "support" abortion. The U.S. already prevents federal funding from covering abortion services."

    Pay for your own abortion.

    Remember when Obama - being the snivelling little prick that he is - sued nuns to force them to do this?

    https://bit.ly/2Gwsz1d

    Turn around is fair play....how does that go again?

    Aaaaannnd.....

    Hello.

  • ||

    Trudeau is pulling the same shit up here:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion.....-1.4491602

    It's not about progress or fairness.

    It's all ideological.

    Obama and Trudeau are a couple of arrogant, dimwitted left-wing dingbats.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Pay for your own abortion.

    Do you know how to read?

    No, of course you don't.

  • ||

    He cut funding. Why, boh? Obama had his own reasons for what he did, and Trump has his. No grants/funding for such groups.

    It all comes down to, and this was my inelegant point, PAY YOUR OWN WAY. Be it abortions or education or health.

    Fighting for Federal money only turns such issues into bigger fights than they need to be.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think some people will continue to object to 3M abortions/year even if they aren't paying for them.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Hint: they're already not paying for them.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Free abortion with $500 cup of coffee.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Is that covered by SNAP?

  • ||

    Yes. Pluralist society and all that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some people find abortions to be murder.

    Imagine that they have to pay taxes to subsidize those "murders" in addition to be against that type of "murder".

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some people believe Obama was born in Kenya.

    Some people believe evolution is just a theory (much like gravity) or a plot launched from the pits of hell.

    Sensible adults do not devote much attention to the opinions of superstitious, backward, half-educated goobers.

    Folks like loveconstitution1789 are entitled to flatter the opinions of those goobers, however, because gullible yahoos have rights, too.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Some people believe Obama was born in Kenya.

    Some people believe evolution is just a theory (much like gravity) or a plot launched from the pits of hell.

    Sensible adults do not devote much attention to the opinions of superstitious, backward, half-educated goobers.

    Folks like loveconstitution1789 are entitled to flatter the opinions of those goobers, however, because gullible yahoos have rights, too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Obama was born in Hawaii thanks to the evidence of his birth certificate that he finally released after months of the issue becoming big news.

    Obama's dad was born in Kenya. He was also a Communist- Obama's dad that is. Obama is a socialist.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Obama is a socialist.

    You're a disaffected right-wing bigot.

    Nobody is perfect.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Sure, and they're paying their own way if they have the kid, right?

    Right?

    ...

    Right?

  • ||

    What's your point? You're beginning to spin around a little.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He's here to make sure we don't single-handedly end abortion taxpayer funding.

    Libertarians are gaining in political strength. Not in Aleppo but somewhere.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Pay for your own abortion.

    Hear, hear. This times a million.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Media inside source revealed.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I would imagine there are indictments coming. Any guesses on how high this goes?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    SCOTUS decision that ends all investigations of Trump and Hilary. Everyone gets off except maybe a sacrificial aid or two. America and the Constitution lose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All the way to Obama, I'm sure.

    Clearly Obama knew that the FBI was conducting unlawful domestic spying on trump and his campaign.

  • The Last American Hero||

    There is no doubt he knew. The texts between the two idiots having the affair make it pretty clear that the White House wants to be kept up to date on all developments. Unless they were implying that the physical building itself is sentient.

  • target||

    then we can just charge the building with the crime ala civil asset forfeiture, it will be found guilty and given to the government for use in governmental interests, that will teach those criminals that they can't keep the fruits of their illegal behavior.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    There's absolutely no question whatsoever that it goes at least as high as John Brennan.

    We don't know with 100% certainty if Brennan came up with the idea himself or if Obama did. But even if Brennan initiated it himself, it's almost impossible to believe that Obama had no clue whatsoever what was going on. He's pretty smart, and punishing his enemies is what he lives for more than anything in the world.

    Just as reminder, this wasn't even the first time Obama and his people pulled a stunt like this. Remember Lois Lerner and the politically motivated I.R.S. targeting?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Even if Obama is complicit, there's basically no chance it goes that high. Brennan or whoever will fall on their sword to save Obama, right?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Oh, you meant in terms of repercussions, sorry, my bad.

    Andrew McCabe is the guy who is in the most legal hot water by far. Horowitz has already formally recommended that he be criminally charged. But there may be other coming, as his next report is going to be coming out pretty soon.

  • Jerryskids||

    Indictments coming? What planet are you from and what time last night did you get here? There might be one indictment coming, but it will be Jimmy the coffee kid, the intern in the red shirt over there.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Are you kidding? Sessions will indict anybody he can, if for no other reason than to get back on Trump's good list.

  • Cyto||

    They won't be playing the "get somebody" game. That is reserved for special prosecutors and federal prosecutors who are not prosecuting their own.

    They had plenty of levers to pull in the email investigation if they wanted to get a democrat. There were plenty of side streets they could have gone down looking for perjury traps in order to flip someone. They didn't touch it with a ten foot pole. To the contrary, when they found evidence of criminal wrongdoing (Comey's evaluation) they buried it - because everyone knew she was going to win (again, Comey's evaluation). They aren't going to run this down like Mueller is doing with unrelated and nebulous conspiracy charges and financial process crimes and "misleading statements" traps. Nobody has the stones to try that with team D.

  • damikesc||

    It should be noted that all of the "crazy" theories Trump had about what Obama was doing to him have actually been pretty fucking accurate.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Prominent Democrats are opposing a Jared Kushner–backed prison reform bill because it doesn't include sentencing reform.

    Because who can do two separate things?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally approved a new, non-opioid-based pill to help with opioid withdrawal symptoms.

    SOFT ON CRIME

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now the Trump administration may cut off any group that so much as talks about abortion.

    Fuck you, cut spe- Oh, wait.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    *Fist chocks this up into the Trump done good column.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Instead, they can pick up a "porn pass" at their local newsstand or corner shop...

    Might as well just go back to buying your skin mags there, if the internet hasn't put them all out of business.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Who pays for porn?

  • Rhywun||

    People with taste and who don't want viruses on their compputer when they're done?

  • Bubba Jones||

    That's why we have ad blockers and incognito and iPads...

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Yeah, I use my Samsung tablet.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Keeps my crotch warm.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    Linux says hi.

  • Rhywun||

    MacOS says hi back.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    Sorry, I though you said "with taste"

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Windows has encountered an unexpected error and couldn't be reached for comment at this time.

  • Rhywun||

    "You must restart your computer to make a comment."

    @#$@%T!@#%!

    /me at work

  • Rhywun||

    "You must restart your computer to make a comment."

    @#$@%T!@#%!

    /me at work

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Have you tried turning it off and on again?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    My cleaning lady pays... dearly.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Anybody whose wife finds his stash?

  • John||

    A good wife has her own stash

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It depends on the relative depravity of the respective spousal stashes, of course.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The government should not be paying for a lot of things and abortions is one of those things.

    Let people who want that procedure to pay for it themselves.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    They already do. Learn how to read.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Money is fungible.

  • John||

    Money is fungible. Learn how to think dipshit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Didn't you already use this comment?

    Taxpayers subsidizes Planned Parenthood.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Big freaking shocker that the so-called "libertarians" of Reason are completely ignoring Operation Crossfire Hurricane, exactly as I predicted they would. The pathetic sad-sacks and losers can't even bring themselves to admit that Trump was telling the truth from the jump and all their friends in the government/media complex were lying until two days ago.

    Right again, as is usually the case.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump has been right quite a bit, which infuriates lefties.

    Trump has been wrong quite a bit too and is still president, which also infuriates lefties.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    This statement could be made about almost any president ever. Just switch lefty to righty depending on the name at the beginning of the sentence.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The level of madness by the left seems to be unprecedented.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    They just have more outlets for their rage. Listen to Hannity or Rush during peak Obama and tell me there isn't rage on the right.

  • Rhywun||

    "More outlets" - no kidding. Hannity and Rush versus the entire rest of the MSM apparatus. I have to turn off the doofuses on my local morning news show it's so bad. This morning they were literally sniggering at Cambridge Analytica. "Well, it's about time!" Yeah, just shut up with your politics and give me the weather.

  • Rhywun||

    "More outlets" - no kidding. Hannity and Rush versus the entire rest of the MSM apparatus. I have to turn off the doofuses on my local morning news show it's so bad. This morning they were literally sniggering at Cambridge Analytica. "Well, it's about time!" Yeah, just shut up with your politics and give me the weather.

  • Rev. Arthur Ꮮ. Kirkland||

    Unprecedented?

    Shouting that the President is an incompetent racist anti-woman fact-challenged media personality backed by religious hypocrites who's going to offend all our allies and start a nuclear war while his irresponsible tax cuts and military spending create deficits that bankrupt the nation and that's why you need to vote Democrat in the Congressional elections this fall . . . that all really just sounds like it's 1982 all over again.

    Hell, what's the "white working class" except the Reagan Democrats redux? He even won Macomb County, Michigan.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Rumor has it that Dave Weigel is complicit in this. ready... set... go!

  • John||

    The FBI spied on a Presidential candidate while letting his opponent walk after having committed multiple national security felonies. You would think such a story would be a big deal to a Libertarian publication. How can they not say anything?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    I am also waiting for Reason to comment on the $100 million Somali Day Care scandal in Minnesota. You'd think wasteful and corrupt gov't spending would be right up their alley.

  • John||

    Two years ago they were swearing up and down that allowing Syrian refugees was totally okay because they could all be vetted. Today they are gloating over the failure of vetting.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Too local.

  • John||

    But the new food truck regulation in Seattle is not.

  • Rhywun||

    What I'm really curious about is their take on tariffs.

  • John||

    And opioids.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And movies.

  • Tony||

    They let her walk after exonerating her... but costing her the election.

    Your brain is so fucking fried you might as well put ketchup on it and serve it to fat people.

  • John||

    They exonerated her even though she was guilty.

  • Tony||

    It really must be nice being able to believe just whatever you want to believe.

  • Mock-star||

    You do realize that is a pretty good summation of Comey's press conference, right? That even though she was guilty, that there would be no prosecution, and, oh yeah, if anyone else does it, they will be prosecuted. You would have to be a real mouth-breathing mongoloid troglodyte to call that an exoneration.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The notion that they cost her the election is laughable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hillary has never been exonerated.

    The statute of limitations has not passed either.

  • Tony||

    You're right, she was never even tried for anything.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Your brain is so whirled and scrambled around it might as well be one of your platefuls of mushy peas.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yeah, "they" kept her from campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.

    "They" kept her from being a nice person like her husband.

    "They" made her rip off the primary from Bernie Sanders.

    PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Tony||

    I come here to get away from the crazy-ass Bernie bros. Jesus Christ, he lost the primary by 4 million votes. He should be a footnote to a footnote.

  • damikesc||

    And doing stuff like having debates on weekend evenings AND giving Hillary the questions in advance aren't evidence of a small issue?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...dealing a reality check to the goal of using artificial intelligence to predict human behavior.

    "That 'death to America' Instagram post doesn't look like anything to me."

  • Rhywun||

    Gee, maybe we wouldn't be arguing about abortion (and about 59,000 other things) so much if federal money wasn't involved.

    To the extent that this means more unintended pregnancies and more undesired births

    Oh FFS. Does anybody really believe that there are folks who don't that birth control and abortion exist?

  • ||

    Exactly. I don't see why it needs funding. 'Oh well life happens so you should pay for somebody else's choices!'

    Pay for it. Lines have to be drawn.

    Here in Quebec they had to kill 'free in-vitro' because it was being abused.

    No. FUCKEN. Shit.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Do you not think it might be harder to get an abortion if there were fewer abortion providers?

  • Bubba Jones||

    A government safety net is used to justify government support for killing babies.

    Perverse incentives, how do they work?

  • Rhywun||

    That is not the issue in question. The issue in question is informing women that abortion exists. It is my belief that there is literally no American who doesn't already know this.

    I couldn't care less about "access" - you want it bad enough, you'll get it.

  • John||

    What is an undesired birth? And how is that not just a polite way of saying they are undesired people?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Would you prefer to call them undocumented people or illegal fetal aliens?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since they are instantly US citizens once they are born in the USA, neither.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Actually, they're not US citizens until they become "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

  • Rhywun||

    It is a terrible inconvenience, apparently.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why can't patients who receive abortions pay for those services without taxpayer money?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    U.K. porn scheme grows ever more complicated.

    Garbage Island finalizing Nanny-State protocols.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Can't Brits simply access American porn websites to avoid age info?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Straight teeth is a massive turn off for them.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I bet the Russian ones are better.

  • damikesc||

    Remember, a Democrat candidate for Senate in MN is asking why we left the UK in the first place.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    One episode of the show included a scene of a woman walking down a street in New York City where she passes by a dumpster tagged with graffiti that says "art we all." The graffiti artist, Itoffee R. Gayle, claims that this depiction violated his copyright and trademark rights.

    What's the world coming to when you vandalize someone else's property and can't successfully sue to gain financially from it.

  • Rhywun||

    "Validating" that garbage was one of the stupider travesties the left inflicted on cities.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Graffiti artist marked up an abandoned building in Queens known as 5 points. It was nice work. However, when the building was sold and demolished, the artists sued and won a few million dollars.

    I'm waiting to see how the appeal turns out.

  • Rhywun||

    In that case, the grafitti went up with the owner's approval. In a sense, it wasn't even grafitti at all.

  • Ron||

    you can buy art and destroy it, at least in the U.S.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Now, "instead of heading to porn shops in shady areas of town, porn consumers will be headed to newspaper kiosks to publicly announce their desire to consume porn in the privacy of their own homes."

    For some folks, that's part of the draw. I, uh, heard.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    When I read that quote I imagine some guy yelling into a bull horn in the public square about his desire to consume porn.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Go hang out with BUCS sometime. It's quite an experience.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    And by "hang out" you mean...

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes, there WILL be dicks out. Not in a sexual way, necessarily, but in a very matter-of-fact way.

  • gormadoc||

    "My daddy taught us to be proud of our dicks."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    At some point you just accept it.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Category 5 political espionage. A short but excellent piece that nails the most critical points of this sordid plan.

    I wonder if Comey feels like a complete fool that he allowed himself to be taken in by such a rabid, partisan, mentally deranged psychopath like John Brennan. If he doesn't, he sure as hell should, I'll tell you that.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Interesting read.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    There are rumors of an Anthony Scaramucci and Michael Avenatti show in the works.

    Still waiting on the Claypool and Deener fishing show to get off the ground.

    Claypool & Deener

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    """I have no interest in television right now," Mr. Avenatti said. ""

    For a guy that says he has no interest in television, he sure like to be in front of the camera.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Still waiting on the Claypool and Deener fishing show to get off the ground.

    Can you only drink beer and watch TV if there's a fishing show on?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    I can do other things but I choose to only drink beer and watch TV. But for this one, I think Shrooms would be appropriate.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Appropriate? Try necessary.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If you wanted to find out what a dumber version of Hannity and Colmes would look like, that's a pretty safe bet.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think you'd have to be a pretty pedantic lefty to object to Trump's characterization of the spying. As political theater goes, that's pretty truthy.

  • The Last American Hero||

    The pedants were out in full force when he claimed he was wire tapped, because you know, they don't sneak into the room and plant a device inside the phone anymore, they do it electronically and that's totally different.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When you wake up and realize Big Brother is all over you:

    Friend is in a jam in another city--needs money right away. I take a few hundred out of the ATM to deposit the cash into his bank account. What could be more immediate than that? I go to the bank to make the deposit.

    They won't let me deposit cash into someone else's bank account. The government won't let me deposit cash into someone else's bank account.

    The government will only let me deposit cash into my own account. Then I can transfer it to his account.

    They say it's to combat money laundering.

    "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

    And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    ----Revelation 13:16-17

    People don't seem to care about warnings of Big Brother, maybe if we get the Bible involved they'll start caring? Maybe if the sea turned to blood and there were plagues of frogs and flies? Surely there must be something people fear and believe in--even if they won't fear of believe what's happening in front of their own damn eyes.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    What bank is this?

    I've never been asked to provide ID when I've made a deposit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Into someone else's bank account or your own?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    My point is how to they know it's not your account.

    I walk into the bank, fill out a deposit slip, hand it and the cash to the teller.

    Never once have I been asked "Is this your account?" or "May I see some ID?"

  • Rhywun||

    Same here. I've had no problem depositing to other people's accounts but it was a few years back the last time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They asked me to slide my debit card.

    I don't have his debit card or his PIN number--because it's not my account.

    I couldn't have put it through the ATM without a PIN and a debit card either.

    Regardless, my issue isn't whether I could have somehow maneuvered around this regulation. My issue is the regulation. I don't believe they did this to me for no reason. If it's extra steps some banks are taking and not others, it's still in reaction to regulation (rather than just for the fuck of it), and none of this should ever be a problem for anybody. Anybody should be able to deposit cash into someone else's account. If that isn't the case anywhere, it's a problem. If that's about to become the case everywhere, it's an even bigger problem.

    The war on terror and the drug war are raping our privacy. And that river only seems to be flowing one way, and no one seems to give a damn.

    And that's a problem regardless of whether I could have wormed my way around the regulation yesterday.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I agree Ken. These types of banking laws are ridiculous.

    Its none of the government's business why or how much I am adding to someone else's bank account.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you have to slide your debit card and input your PIN?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You fill out a bank slip and hand the cash and slip to the teller.

    If the deposit is over $9,999 they make you fill out a suspicious bank info form.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    But in the OP Ken says it's just "a few hundred".

  • Ken Shultz||

    And then they asked me to slide my debit card.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Just ask for a bank slip and put the other person's account number.

    Some banks are even so small that they can look up the correct account by name. A big bank like Bank of America wants to have the correct account number so your deposit is not added to the incorrect account.

    I once tried to spend $5 million dollars incorrectly added to my checking account. The bank grabbed it back within 5 hours once they realize the mistake.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Which returns me to my original question "What bank is doing this?" so we'll all know to avoid it.

    It's clearly not every bank as I've never been asked to use a debit card to make a deposit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bank of America is one example. You can use a debit card or a bank slip to deposit money.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    CHASE makes you ID when you want to deposit if you're using a teller.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Oh, and if you want to make change, you have to ID at CHASE.

  • MAGA my NAGGA||

    "The U.S. already prevents federal funding from covering abortion services."

    I remember discussing this in the past and the word "fungible" comes to mind.

  • Bubba Jones||

    What do mushrooms have to do with this?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You are a fun guy.

  • Ken Shultz||

    On another topic, the Capitals kicked me in the balls again.

    I'm so tired of getting kicked in the balls. They've been kicking me in the balls every year for more than ten years!

    Why oh why can't you win a home game?

    Maybe it's because they're afraid they're gonna kick us in the balls again?

    P.S. It's actually just about a hot goalie reverting to form. Goalie gets hot in the playoffs, there's only so much you can do about that. You put 40 shot on goal, you should get three to four goals. They're only getting two. Not much you can do about that over the course of one or two games. That's why it's a seven game series. Meanwhile, Tampa still can't generate much offense in five on five. My prediction is hence revised, anyway. Instead of it being Caps in six, it'll be Caps in seven.

    Book it.

  • ||

    Pain?

    Wait until Vegas wins in its first year!

    Talk about being kicked in the privates for Sabres, Caps, Leafs, Blues, Jets, Senators, Sharks fans!

  • Ken Shultz||

    The league should have vetoed the Fleury deal.

    That was fundamentally unfair to take cash in exchange for agreeing not to protect a player.

    They'll never let anybody do that again.

  • Bubba Jones||

    How is that different from a trade?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's fundamentally different from a trade in the same way that letting a team pick players from off of all the other teams isn't a trade.

    That wasn't a trade. It was an abuse of a special one time privilege.

  • Lowdog||

    And coyotes fans.

  • GlenchristLaw||

    "Some libertarians will inevitably argue in favor of the move on the grounds that anything that cuts federal spending is good."

    With all due respect to the True Scotsman, no libertarian overtly supports an overtly bad law or tries to whitewhish one by looking at secondary, let alone tertiary, effects, real or imagined.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    To the extent that this means more unintended pregnancies and more undesired births, we could actually see a net increase in federal expenditures on health care and family planning. There's no way this move is really a fiscally conservative one. For most pushing the change, it's about religious doctrine or morality.

    I look forward to the Reason editorials opposing low-skilled immigration on the grounds that could actually cause a net increase in federal expenditures.

  • John||

    And immigration by minors. Native children are just a burden on society and a low birth rate is great. Immigrant children are an invaluable asset. Taken together, that is What Reason's positions on these issues add up to.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Ding. Refugee children are awesome. Welfare kids are a bane on society. WTF.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    American natives just are not wired to be serfs like non-Americans can be.

    Those cosmo houses in NY, D.C., and CA are not going to clean themselves.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The U.S. already prevents federal funding from covering abortion services."

    I missed earlier discussion of this.

    The way it works in practice?

    Whenever a female of child bearing years undergoes a procedure that requires anesthesia, a pregnancy test is administered as a precaution. Generally speaking, an anesthesiologist won't anesthetize a woman of child bearing years without a negative pregnancy test--or they open themselves up to all kinds of lawsuits. If and when the test comes out positive, they offer the patient a two-fer---we could give you an abortion while you're under before we do the other procedure!

    In this way, Medicaid will pay for anybody to have an abortion because not having the procedure in question, presumably, would affect the health of the mother.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Taxpayers subsidize Planned Parenthood too.

  • Cantard||

    By law, federal programs cannot reimburse for the abortion service. Period.

    In the example provided, the billing for this service could not include the cost of the abortive procedure in medical billings to federal programs. That would have to be separated out and billed to the individual or other group as appropriate.

    Planned Parenthood does receive tax payer funds, but ONLY for those services submitted to the state which the state has agreed to repay (ie, not abortions)

    I address the "MONEY IS FUNGIBLE" argument with this example:

    I hire you to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. I pay you the agreed upon amount. You use the money to buy beer and attend a strip club.

    Did I pay money for A) mowing my lawn, B) Beer, C) Strip Clubs, or D) Both B and C. If you chose D), then you have a lot of explaining to do for every dollar you ever gave to anyone else which was eventually spent on anything of a morally questionable nature.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "By law, federal programs cannot reimburse for the abortion service. Period."

    What about state administration by way of Medicaid?

    "As of 2016, 17 states use their own funds to extend abortion coverage to low-income women enrolled in Medicaid (although some of these states still make it difficult to access). An additional 6 states extend abortion coverage under specific exceptions, such as when a woman's health is at risk."

    http://www.plannedparenthoodac.....-amendment

    What prevents states from including funding for elective abortions as part of their matching funds request from the federal government for Medicaid expenditures?

    P.S. Is it constitutional for the states to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.P.S. The Hyde amendment prohibits abortion funds--unless the life of the mother is at risk or it's a case of rape or incest.

    Medicaid was only paying for those bariatric surgeries, for instance, because they were considered morbidly obese. What surgeries that require anesthesia can women go without that also can't be considered a threat to mother's health to forgo?

  • Ken Shultz||

    In the hospital where I worked, we once had a mother/daughter team come in for bariatric surgery (they were both so fat, if they didn't lose weight, they would die--so Medicaid was paying for gastric bypass/banding under the diagnosis of "morbid obesity").

    The daughter came up positive in the pregnancy test before surgery, and the mother got so mad that her daughter was pregnant, they started beating the shit out of each other. Once they realized she could have the abortion while she was under and they could both go through with the procedure (and rehab) together as planned, everybody calmed down--it was a win/win!

    The hospital and the doctors still got paid for the procedure, the ladies still each got a hundred thousand worth of surgery free of charge, and, best of all, the Christian fundamentalists had their First Amendment rights protected by the First Amendment.

    Well, anyway, two out of three ain't bad.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Maybe they should have put the band around the uterus?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Side note: if a morbidly obese lady with a bad personality can get herself knocked up, then there's no such thing as "involuntarily celibate."

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    John's taste in women is not the issue here.

  • John||

    2014 called and they want their joke back

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's Hit'n'Run canon, John. You may as well lean into it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm still being subjected to "cunt" jokes from 2008.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    RAPE HANDFUL OF HIKERS, LOOK WHERE IT GET STEVE SMITH.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its always the good ones that die during surgery.

  • Rhywun||

    I had no idea that went on. Very interesting.

  • Cantard||

    On the abortion issue:

    Seems to me that an executive order baring funds from groups designated by Congress to receive them under the cause of a first amendment limitation for advising on a fourth amendment right would have a number of legal issues.

    1) The Congress determines who can apply for these funds, not the Executive.
    2) The Executive in doing so is seeking to limit these medical providers first amendment rights without rational cause. As Reason points out, this prohibition is based on religious/political interests, not a practical/rational one.
    3) Abortion is protected under the fourth amendment and numerous court rulings have erected protections against unreasonable prohibitions of that right.

    Based on these reasons, I would expect such an EO to be immediately challenged and ruled unconstitutional.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And, here, I was expecting the establishment of religion to be an issue!

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

    Seems simple enough, really.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The more simple the Constitutional language the more "unclear" it is.

    Destroying America 101: Change traditional definitions to promote confusion and take advantage by curtailing freedoms under the guise of a "living constitution".

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Is that like when Naturalization = Immigration?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Regulating both immigration and naturalization are constitutional enumerated power of Congress.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Remember that time Obama used an EO to force nuns to finance their employees' fornication?

    Whatever became of that?

  • Cantard||

    The SCOTUS bounced it back down to the lower courts where the DOJ probably dropped the case after Trump was sworn in.

    FYI, it wasn't an EO. It was the ACA. Refer to Zubik v. Burwell.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Wasn't it Obama's interpretation of the ACA?

  • Cantard||

    Not as such to the best of my knowledge. Though his administration did try to make compromises with the Little Sisters in how much agency they had to have in getting insurance with included abortion coverage for their employees.

    I do believe religious institutions (actual churches) had exemptions under the ACA, however, the Little Sister were not such an organization, though they undoubtedly had a religious mandate.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Except that this order (when promulgated by Reagan, already passed constitutional muster)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_v._Sullivan

  • Cantard||

    Interesting. Thanks for the reference.

    Probably then the arguments will focus on differences from how Trump's HHS seek to implement his request vs how Rust was implemented. Other than that, Congressional options will be under consideration following the November election cycle.

  • Jerryskids||

    Ding, ding, ding!!!!

    Of course it will be, but not until after the elections.

    In this case, it doesn't matter if the policy has a chance of succeeding, just that Trump is perceived as being on the same page as his anti-abortion supporters.

    Trump's pro-choice and he ain't up for election, he don't give a shit.

  • Eidde||

    "To the extent that this means more unintended pregnancies and more undesired births, we could actually see a net increase in federal expenditures on health care and family planning."

    If you can't see babies as human, you could at least see them as potential future taxpayers, rather than simply assuming they're going to go on the dole.

  • DesigNate||

    Obviously the only people that get abortions are incompetent poor people squeezing out another child credit and welfare recipient.

  • John||

    And any child that is born without being the perfect choice of their parents is just worthless and should never be born. Between ENB's love of abortion and Bailey's transhumanism, the amount of casual loathing of humanity on Reason is epic

  • Rich||

    No grants for groups that "support" abortion.

    SCOTUS hardest hit.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If only SCROTUS had been hardest hit then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    +1 Still Life With Woodpecker

  • DesigNate||

    Live by the sword (of getting the government involved in healthcare and medical spending), die by the sword (of a different party controlling that government healthcare and medical spending).

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Shorter version: me today, you tomorrow.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Another school shooting happened.

  • Tony||

    Trump is such a whiny bitch.

    I do not understand why people think being a big fat whiny bitch is the same as being a tough guy.

  • John||

    And you lost to him.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Nobody has ever accused you of being a tough guy, Tony.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, how does it feel to lose such an important election to someone you deem a whiny bitch?

  • Tony||

    I feel bad for the future of the human species. How does it feel to support a fat orange demented clown for president?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Another meeting of Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Private Clinics?

    Carry on, clingers. In all of your authoritarian, faux libertarian finery.

  • The Last American Hero||

    How private are they once they take taxpayer money?

    Feed at the public trough, don't bitch about getting heartburn.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If the government rents office space, buys a sandwich tray, orders a fighter jet, or contracts for window cleaning from a company, how private is that company?

    If the government hires a person (an as independent contractor) to mow a lawn, make and deliver a pot of coffee, deliver a newspaper, or teach an abstinence-only class from 1942, is that person still a private citizen?

    You might want to try another crack at that one.

  • SIV||

    Obvious fix:

    Some libertarians will inevitably argue in favor of the move on the grounds that anything that cuts federal spending is good.
  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I can think of some. For instance, further defunding public defense attorneys, while leaving prosecutor's funding untouched. I think many libertarians would take issue with that.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You're trying to reason with a disaffected, reason-impervious right-winger. I admire the optimism, but question the judgment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're trying to reason with a disaffected, reason-impervious right-winger.

    As opposed to an ill-educated, solipsistic hicklib.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Given that we have 1.3 trillion in deficit spending going on after a decade of trillion dollar deficits, yes, any cut is a good one.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Are you ready to start with the silly, authoritarian, doomed plan to build a wall?

  • drugwarisevil||

    "Some libertarians will inevitably argue in favor of the move on the grounds that anything that cuts federal spending is good. But that rests on a faulty premise, since the change doesn't signal one cent of a reduction in federal funds overall." And some will argue that you misrepreset the libertarian argument since liberarians oppose subsidies period...irregardless of the affect on the budget.

    Some of us oppose subsidizing abortions because it forces those who are morally opposed to them to help pay for them. I, as a pro-life atheist, would not outlaw abortion because there is too much disagreement on when life begins. But I damned sure do not think it necessary nor appropriate to take money from those who clearly feel it is murder and use it to fund them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    When did the discussion come to involve subsidizing abortions?

    And what is your opinion about the feelings of citizens who do not want government to take money from them to fund torture, bigoted immigration enforcement, right-wing Israeli belligerence, and the teaching of superstitious nonsense to children in schools?

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, I dunno. The headline?

    As far as the rest goes, in principle most libertarians would limit government to providing courts to allow people to resolve disputes without resorting to violence, enforcing criminal laws with actual victims, and protecting the borders from foreign aggression. In short, using force in response to force or to prevent force.

    Except for devout conservatives, most Americans oppose torture. Some would argue that immigration enforcement counts as protecting borders from aggression. I don't. I don't see foreign aid on that list. Nor do I see government schools.

  • Mark22||

    "Trump Purportedly Planning Grant Ban for Groups That Don't Disavow Abortion: Reason Roundup"

    Fake news. Check your sources.

    More importantly, even if it were true, so what? Fewer government grants are a good thing.

  • esteve7||

    Why is the government giving grants in the first place?

    How about no, fuck you, you don't get say the government should have the power to do X but only if Y is in charge.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online