Why Trump Can Cut Funds to Abortion Providers, but It Doesn’t Go Far Enough by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera

Last week, the Trump administration moved to cut funds to abortion providers. It was a great move, indeed. But we’ve got a lot more moves to make ourselves.

Last Friday, the White House announced a proposed regulation that would kill countless American women and force the rest to wear bright red dresses and white bonnets.

No—I’m just kidding. That’s how the administration’s move was described in a breathless hysteria by the pro-abortion crowd. What actually happened is that the administration issued a proposed rule concerning what’s known as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Here’s a little history to understand it:

In 1970, Richard Nixon signed Title X into law. Its stated purpose was to provide low-income Americans with “acceptable and effective family planning methods and services” by providing grants to “public or nonprofit private entities.”

Section 1008 of the law clearly states “None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

In 1988, Ronald Reagan sought to close a big loophole in this law: While groups receiving Title X funds couldn’t perform abortions themselves, they could still refer women to non-recipients who would. In fact, there was nothing in the law as interpreted that prevented recipients from sharing facilities or even staff with abortion providers. So abortion providers could still receive those funds, in a sort of accounting trick.

So the Reagan administration banned Title X recipients from counseling and advising women about abortion or referring them to abortion providers. Although the regulation was challenged in court, it was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan.

But by the time that dust was settled, Bill Clinton was president and so it never went into effect.

Click here to read more.
Source: Christian Post