Abortion’s legal. So is declining to put it on the public dime. That’s been the uneasy truce for many years between abortion providers (and promoters) and American taxpayers. Uneasy, and shaky: even since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, children conceived through violence have always been at risk of abortion at public expense.

This week,  the U.S. House has taken a step toward making the Hyde Amendment permanent, and President Trump has reinstated the Mexico City policy. The Hyde Amendment refers to abortion-funding limitations in the domestic Health and Human Services budget, which must be renewed each budget cycle. The Mexico City policy (named for the location of the 1984 U.N. conference where the policy was first adopted) prevents U.S. money sent to the United Nations Population Fund from being used for abortion activity, as distinct from family planning.

The Mexico City policy has been in effect under every Republican president since Reagan. It was revoked by Democrats Clinton and Obama. For a generation, it has been an indicator of one of the differences between the two major parties: Democrats want public money to be available for abortion in all circumstances. Republicans don’t.

There are resisters to the Hyde and Mexico City provisions, of course, who have dusted off the moniker “global gag rule” to describe the Mexico City policy . Let the hashtagging begin. You’re not only trying to keep people from doing abortions, but even talking to women about abortion, say the hashtaggers. No, we’re just trying to keep the hands of abortion providers out of the pockets of people who recognize that abortion terminates human life.

A woman is free to choose abortion. Are you and I free to refuse to pay for it? The opponents of Hyde and Mexico City say no. They defend choice for the abortion-minded woman, but not for the pro-life taxpayer.

The “gag rule” argument is one of two used by coerced-funding fans. The other is the claim that abortion is health care and must be treated as such. Both arguments get more traction every time a politician parrots them without dispute.

Attorney Cathleen Cleaver, speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2001, noted that any “gag” on abortion providers under the Mexico City policy is self-imposed.

…the policy forces nothing: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may choose to apply for U.S. tax funds, and to be eligible, they must refrain from abortion activity. On the other hand, NGOs may choose to do abortions or to lobby foreign nations to change their laws which restrict abortion, and if they choose that path they render themselves ineligible for U.S. money. As we saw the last time the policy was in place [under President Reagan], only two out of hundreds of organizations elected to forfeit the U.S. money for which they were otherwise eligible. But it was and will be entirely their choice.

Hyde has been a legislative action. Mexico City has been an executive action. The judiciary weighed in on this a long time ago, coming down on the side of people who choose not to fund abortion, upholding the Hyde Amendment in Harris v. McRae (1980). Yet public funding of abortion activity is still an open question: Hyde must be proposed anew every two years, use of the Mexico City policy depends on the personal preferences of a president, and what today’s Supreme Court might do if faced with a funding case is anyone’s guess.

This week’s actions by President Trump and the House are most welcome. They may prove to be only passing victories, though, unless the people who want nothing to do with the abortion industry become as noisy and persistent as the people determined to fund the industry publicly.

By the way, I heard Cecile Richards crowing after the election that the advent of Trump has led to a huge increase in donations to Planned Parenthood. How many of those donations were designated for political use rather than clinical care? How much public funding could be offset by these donations, if Planned Parenthood so chose? Are we going to see those figures anytime during this year’s funding debate?

at Saturday’s Women’s March.

I watched, and still cannot figure out why the vagina costumes [sic – the correct name for the particular body part the costumes depict is vulva], and why the p***y hats: If you are so incensed about a man reducing women to her body parts, why are you reducing all women, including Our Lady of Guadalupe, to their body parts?

The Austin marchers interviewed couldn’t even tell Steven Crowder why they marched:

I’m cynical enough to think the Soros-funded marches were originally intended as a celebration of Hillary’s ascent to the throne Presidency, and became a public hissy fit when that didn’t work out.

All the same, the speakers and the attendees abundantly indulged in foul language while unhinged.

As a sideshow, the Washington, D.C., marchers desecrated the Daughters of the American Revolution Memorial (emphasis added),

Ironically, the largest building complex privately built, owned, operated and maintained entirely by women in the world.

After the march, someone posted on Facebook “I am not a “disgrace to women” because I don’t support the women’s march.” Sure as rain, a condescending marcher had to inform us that You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry, because “You did nothing to earn your rights.”

Setting aside a discussion on unalienable rights, odds are that this person in younger than I. I am pretty sure we have never met. So what does she(?) know about what I have earned, or not, in my long life? The condescension piles on:

“You still make less than a man for doing the same work.”

Then start your own business, or work entirely on commission.

“You still have to justify your behavior when a man forces himself on you.”

Get training on firearms, get your license. Carry.

“You are still objectified”

Then stop wearing pussy hats, vagina [sic] costumes, and using sexual and profane words. Cover your breasts – nobody wants to see them. But back to more condescension,

“Estonia allows parents to take up to three years of leave, fully paid for the first 435 days.”

Move to Estonia.

The article ends with an offer:

“I will walk for you.”

No thank you. I walk for and whenever I please. Which, by the way, this answer is related to my resolutions after watching the shameful displays on Saturday: I’ve resolved to never use foul language, strive to behave with some dignity, and to continue to associate with people of decency and drop any others. Otherwise I would have told them not to let the door hit them on their p***yhats on the way out.

I clearly need to work some more on my resolutions.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz posts on U.S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

Howard: Well, where are you going?
Sheldon: Where are you going?
Raj: We just told you.
Sheldon: I just told you.
Howard: No, you didn’t.
Sheldon: Well, it’s your word against mine; see you in court.

The Big Bang Theory: The 43 Peculiarity< /em> 2012

If you turned on the MSM yesterday the only story that apparently exists is the assertion by the president that Hillary Clinton’s popular vote margin was due to millions of illegal aliens voting.

As you might guess the entire MSM is up in arms we’re talking full hysteria mode:

I’m sure these upstanding media folk are thinking (for the upteenth billion time) that they’ve finally got Trump and now they’ll be able to bring him down.

But what they don’t realize is that they’ve fallen into his trap once again.

First of all he’s gotten the MSM to bring up this subject meaning that many people who didn’t entertain the possibility of illegal voting will now start entertaining it.

Second of all in the same week that the MSM which has a 14% approval rating was caught falsely claiming that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King from the oval office you have them asserting that this claim is isn’t true, or “debunked”. Given the level of trust that the MSM has with the public that very assertion that Trump is lying, made by them at a point where their credibility and popularity are dwarfed by Trump will trend to make people believe it.

But this is all preliminary, the real snare is this.

There is one sure way to definitely debunk President Trump’s claim, and that’s to examine the voting in blue enclaves that overwhelmingly voted Hillary, areas that for the most part unexpectedly don’t have voter ID laws in place, and do some good old fashioned investigative reporting.

And this is the trap being laid.

I strongly suspect that said enclaves can not stand the scrutiny that such an investigation would bring. Thus if any press organization decides to launch one, even if ostensibly to debunk claims of voter fraud, they are likely to get a lot of pushback in said Democrat enclaves. Will by their very nature reinforce the idea that the Democrats are hiding something.

And even worse what if such fraud is found? How will the MSM play it? “Trump was lying about 3,000,000 illegal aliens voting, we only found evidence of 100,000 to 500,000 nationwide” Yeah that’s going to bring him down.

If it is suggested to the MSM that they should consider such an investigation they will likely answer: The burden of proof is not on us. Yeah THAT’S going to really play well with a population that doesn’t trust them.

Of course the ultimate trap would be for the president to bluntly say that if states like California wish to ally my fears they can simply pass and enforce voter ID laws to assure the integrity of the vote.

I wonder how the MSM will react to that?

UPDATE: How do define a sucker in three steps

Ana Navarro after Trump’s remarks:

So what does Trump do? He orders an investigation!

President Donald Trump called on Wednesday for “a major investigation” into voter fraud, following through with baseless claims he has made since November’s election alleging millions of illegal votes during the general election without citing any evidence.

“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and … even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!” Trump wrote in two consecutive tweets.

Ana Navarro after Trump announces the investigation that she said he wouldn’t


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog AwardsIt’s 2017 and we have a new chance to make our annual goal which requires $61 a day.

[As of Jan 11th between subscribers and tip jar hitters we are at a 64.9% pace for 2017 $436 of $671 based on our daily goal]

If you’d like to help support our award winning independent non MSM journalism and opinion from writers all over the nation like Baldilocks, RH, Fausta, JD Rucker Christopher Harper, Pat Austin, and John Ruberry plus Monthly pieces from Jon Fournier, Tech Knight and Ellen Kolb and want to help pay their monthly wages (along with the cartoonist) and new writers I’m looking to hire) please consider hitting DaTipJar.

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to go to CPAC and cover major events in person all over the country and maybe take some of Da Magnificent Seven writers with me.

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level