$575M to be spent on abortions in areas with high population growth – NaturalNews.com

(Natural News)
If you live somewhere that the globalists believe is extra special but growing too fast in terms of its human population, the latest omnibus spending bill will deal with the “problem” by funding more abortions in your area.

Of the $1.7 trillion – yes, that is trillion with a T – apportioned for spending next year, no less than $575 million of that is set to go toward “family planning” and “reproductive health” initiatives, specifically “in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

According to Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), these depopulation provisions are “sinister” in that they set the stage for expanded access to abortion in key areas of the country that the globalist elite believe are growing too fast.

“Here’s at least $575 million for ‘family planning’ in areas where population growth ‘threatens biodiversity,’” Bishop tweeted about the matter.

“Malthusianism is a disturbing, anti-human ideology that should have ZERO place in any federal program.” (Related: Some religions consider abortion to be a “religious freedom issue.”)

Bishop also tweeted about how the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill also contains a $65 million apportionment for two programs for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the president pro tempore of the United States Senate. One of them includes erecting a building in honor of Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.

“Swamp gonna Swamp,” Bishop wrote about this wasteful attempt to immortalize one of the most corrupt politicians to ever pollute the halls of Congress by her very existence.


Democrats (and some Republicans) love to murder babies – and they especially love doing it with your money

Many, including those at The Washington Examiner, are wondering why the $575 million in provisions for expanded abortion aim specifically at areas of faster population growth that exist near biodiversity.

“It’s unclear why the provision expressly notes it should go toward areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or what type of family planning services would be provided with the funding,” the media outlet reported.

“Several Republican figures criticized that particular item in the 4,200-page bill as an example of wasteful government spending.”

It is likely that almost all congressional Republicans will vote against the bill because of these and other stipulations. It is Republicans, at least on this issue, that continue to fight the good fight against taxpayer-funded murder of the unborn – though not all of them.

The following 18 Republican senators voted for the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill, which includes more than half a billion dollars for expanded abortion: Blunt, Boozman, Capito, Collins, Cornyn, Cotton, Graham, Inhofe, McConnell, Moran, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Shelby, Thune, Wicker, Young.

“In addition, there were three senators who didn’t even show up to vote all of whom were Republicans: Barasso, Burr, and Cramer,” added senior digital strategist at X Strategies LLC Greg Price to the conversation on Twitter.

Following the bill’s passage, Fox News reported that the legislation also contains funding specifically for illegal aliens – this as millions of actual Americans who live here legally struggle to survive amid skyrocketing inflation and get no help from their representatives.

“And to be clear what they voted for,” Price added, “$45 billion of new aid to Ukraine, no funding for border security, raises for the FBI, DOJ, and ATF, and worst of all: deliberately kneecapping the incoming House majority’s leverage over the budget for an entire year.”

A blue checkmark-designated account called “IfNotMeWho” also tweeted the following reminder about which Republicans voted for this legislative atrocity and now need to be held accountable by voters:

Make them pay… https://t.co/beLdRdUbMB

— IfNotMeWho ?? (@IfNotMeWho_7553) December 22, 2022

The latest news about taxpayer-funded baby murder can be found at Abortions.news.

Sources for this article include: