Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,430 posts)
7. The closest they have done with similar language is the Hyde Amendment
Sat May 6, 2017, 11:37 AM
May 2017

(re: abortions) and that has been upheld since 1980.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121402281

And in that case, the scope of the funding can be limited in that manner. But note that doing that doesn't explicitly denote a prohibition for a specific "person" (or "persons&quot or entity, which is what naming Planned Parenthood as some "exception" to funding currently permitted to others providing similar services, would do.

Of course if they attempt to cut off funding for any reproductive services, then that would piss off a whole lot of folks (and I know there are some RW extremist nutjobs trying to get there by nibbling away - e.g., trying to equate "contraception" with "abortion", etc).

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»New York AG: I'll sue if ...»Reply #7