On his first full day of work in the White House on January 23, 2017, a day after the 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Trump signed his first executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy that bans U.S. funding of at least half a billion dollars to international organizations that perform abortions or provide information about abortion. (See “Trump fulfills 3 promises in first day of work as POTUS, including defund International Planned Parenthood”)
President Trump kept his word.
Reuters reports that on April 3, 2017, the State Department informed Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker in a letter that the U.S. is ending taxpayers’ funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) because the agency “supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”
In so doing, President Trump is saving taxpayers as much as $75 million — the amount the Obama administration had given UNFPA in 2015 in core budget and earmarked contributions, which made the U.S. the fourth largest donor to UNFPA.
In a statement on its website, UNFPA said it regrets the U.S. decision to end funding, which it said is based on an “erroneous claim” that the agency supports coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China. UNFPA said its mission is “to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person’s potential is fulfilled. The support we received over the years from the government and people of the United States has saved tens of thousands of mothers from preventable deaths and disabilities, and especially now in the rapidly developing global humanitarian crises.”
Blah, blah, blah.
The end in U.S. funding of UNFPA is President Trump’s first move to curtail funding for the United Nations, to which the United States is the top donor.
There is a bill in Congress, H. R. 193, to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on January 3, 2017. Tell your Congress critters to support HR 193!
Note: It is noteworthy that Vigilant Citizen (VC) has since taken down its post of September 23, 2016, “Why the Trump vs. Clinton Election is a Complete Sham,” instructing VC‘s readers not to vote in the upcoming Nov. 8 presidential election. But the post is reproduced on many websites, including The Seeker.
I had read the post when it was first published on Vigilant Citizen and was utterly disgusted by VC‘s grandiose know-it-all and plain irresponsibility. I wrote a comment questioning how he knows Trump is no different than Hillary, and proposed that the only way to verify his claim is precisely to vote for Trump. If President Trump turns out indeed to be no different than Hillary, that proves VC to be right; if President Trump turns out to be different than Hillary, that proves VC to be wrong. My comment was never published. Instead of admitting he is wrong, Vigilant Citizen chose the coward’s way out by deleting his “Why the Trump vs. Clinton Election is a Complete Sham” post from his website. This is why I no longer read Vigilant Citizen.