Why on earth are we supporting anti-abortion activists and feeding female beneficiaries less?

1
347

 

There’s such a churn of news that at times you miss things and need to pull them back into the spotlight.

Why on earth are we supporting anti-abortion activists…

Department refuses to rule out funding anti-abortion charities PCS and CPS

More than $335,000 of taxpayer money was given to Pregnancy Counselling Services (PCS) and Crisis Pregnancy Support (CPS) through the Community Organisation Grants Scheme (Cogs) over the past 15 years.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

PCS claims to be a non-religious, non-political entity, but RNZ reported this weektheir stated goal is to talk people facing unexpected pregnancies out of having abortions. Both organisations have lobbied against abortion law reform, and are part-funded by church groups.

…what? Abortion is a medical procedure decided between a pregnant woman and her Dr, why the hell would we be giving money to anti-abortion fanatics whose only goal is to talk women out of having an abortion?

What madness is this? Note the Minister’s feeble shrug and none explanation when challenged about this?

Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector Poto Williams would not comment on whether funding the anti-abortion organisations was appropriate.

I can’t work out if the amount of arse covering by our Ministers for their Ministry’s is cowardice or an example of Stockholm syndrome.

The cowardice/held hostage explanation doesn’t extend however to this next example of female beneficiaries receiving less than male beneficiaries in food grants…

Women receiving less food than men in controversial Auckland beneficiaries trial

Women are receiving less food than men in a controversial trial with beneficiaries in Auckland.

The Social Development Ministry is carrying out a controversial trial, using the Otago Food Cost Survey – which tracks the annual cost of common food items – to calculate the size of food grants in Auckland. Under the trial, women aren’t given as much money for food as men.

“I was allowed to have up to $60-something a week myself, and my partner was allowed $70. Now, how can you differentiate the difference between him and I with that amount of money?” food grant recipient Awhi said.

This week, 1 NEWS revealed nutritional experts running the food survey have serious concerns over the ministry’s trial.

“I wouldn’t be comfortable with it being used, especially for hardship benefits,” Otago University’s Claire Smith said.

…what the Ministry is trying to do here is erode universal food grant benefits by giving women less because they nutritionally require less than males.

It’s part of their ideological programming to destroy any universal benefit so as to slash the welfare budget. More women are beneficiaries than men, they require food grants more often, if the Ministry can argue women require less nationally than men, they can slash the total cost.

Seeing as women have a large amount of grocery needs that go beyond food, like tampons, this policy seems as stupid as it is spiteful.

Again, notice the impotence of the Minister…

Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni called the controversial trial an operational matter and said it can continue.

…who the hell is running things? The democratically elected representatives of NZ, or the bloody Wellington bureaucrats?

 

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.