February 11, 2018

NY Times Bemoans (Sensible) ‘Sweeping Limits’ on Federal Regulators’ Actions

At the New York Times on Saturday (Sunday’s print edition), reporter Robert Pear seemed unhappy that the Trump administration is reining in an extra-legal tool used by the government’s regulatory leviathan. Reading his article’s headline — “Administration Imposes Sweeping Limits on Federal Actions Against Companies” — one would think that companies can now run rampant without fear of legal repercussions. That’s nonsense.


AP Uses ‘Expert’ on Bitcoin Who Predicts It Will Consume the Entire World’s Electricity

Move over, Michael Mann. There’s a new gloom-and-doom graph claiming that bitcoin “mining” will consume all of the world’s electricity in two years. A Sunday Associated Press “Q&A” cited one of its makers but ignored the graph, giving concerns about bitcoin’s environmental impact unwarranted credibility.


Sunday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (021118)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.

Positivity: President Donald Trump’s Defunding International Planned Parenthood Has Hurt the Global Abortion Agenda

Filed under: Life-Based News,Positivity,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:55 am

From C-Fam, via Life News:

FEB 1, 2018 3:58PM

Some of President Donald J. Trump’s harshest critics admit that his reinstatement and expansion of the pro-life Mexico City Policy has been highly effective in advancing the United States’ moral influence to curb the international abortion lobby.

The policy has been implemented by Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan, blocking U.S. funding for foreign organizations that provide or advocate for abortions. Direct U.S. funding for overseas abortions is already prohibited in law by the Helms Amendment in 1973.

Despite the deeply entrenched political divide around abortion, the policy’s critics hope to sway pro-life stakeholders by arguing that the policy causes harm through its unintended consequences. They claim that it results in the denial of basic health services to women whose providers choose not to comply with the policy, lose U.S. funding, and therefore reduce their offerings or close their doors altogether.

Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, two of the largest international family planning providers—who also perform abortions—have notably refused to accept the terms of the reinstated policy. Instead, they have chosen to forego U.S. funding, even if it means cutting back their delivery of less controversial services or closing clinics entirely.

Because the Mexico City Policy involves U.S. aid work in foreign countries, the politics of abortion on the ground vary between locations, depending on local law, culture, and other donor organizations and countries. Nevertheless, there is clear evidence of the policy’s impact, often published by its critics. A 2010 report on the policy’s effects in Ethiopia cited erosion of trust in the legitimacy of abortion providers and quoted people as asking, “[I]f abortion is a positive development for Ethiopian women’s health, then why does the U.S. government not support it?” …

Go here for the rest of the story.