Psa-food aid for pregnant women proposed to be cut

[Anonymous]

Ok. We as a nation has amassed bad Karma and so we have to pay for our sins.

God has forsaken America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

Women’s choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

"Those fetuses and babies, if we give them food, they'll get dependent on it" has to be one of thr worst takes I've ever seen.

The government actually saves a ton of money on WIC. Every dollar spent on WIC saves $2-3 long term because giving kids proper nutrition prevents life long health issues.

https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/issues/the-hidden-cost-of-cutting-wic/

Cutting WIC harms society and costs money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

"Those fetuses and babies, if we give them food, they'll get dependent on it" has to be one of thr worst takes I've ever seen.

The government actually saves a ton of money on WIC. Every dollar spent on WIC saves $2-3 long term because giving kids proper nutrition prevents life long health issues.

https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/issues/the-hidden-cost-of-cutting-wic/

Cutting WIC harms society and costs money.

DP here but just chiming in to say you’re an actual idiot. Life expectancy for someone on government welfare is appallingly low, it’s not saving anyone’s life. You’re probably also the poster who wants 2 year olds eating Doritos on SNAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

NP.

Could you please use “pregnant person,” instead, next time?

Thx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

"Those fetuses and babies, if we give them food, they'll get dependent on it" has to be one of thr worst takes I've ever seen.

The government actually saves a ton of money on WIC. Every dollar spent on WIC saves $2-3 long term because giving kids proper nutrition prevents life long health issues.

https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/issues/the-hidden-cost-of-cutting-wic/

Cutting WIC harms society and costs money.

DP here but just chiming in to say you’re an actual idiot. Life expectancy for someone on government welfare is appallingly low, it’s not saving anyone’s life. You’re probably also the poster who wants 2 year olds eating Doritos on SNAP.

This has ro be thr stupidest thing I've seen in a while. Poor people die younger so clearly the problem is... feeding kids? You think babies will live longer if we don't feed them?

Good lord.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

You already know that forcing women to have babies is all that MAGA cares about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heads up if you depend on food aid from Women, infants and children-the fruit and vegetables benefit is proposed to be cut.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/04/house-bill-rolls-back-food-aid-pregnant-women-children/?utm_campaign=wp_the7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F4742f60%2F6a22a9c51fe63242be218a3f%2F62122d12ae7e8a6b2f3d07a3%2F17%2F91%2F6a22a9c51fe63242be218a3f

House bill rolls back food aid for pregnant women, children
Millions of WIC recipients would have less money for fruits and vegetables under the legislation, which funds the Agriculture Department and other agencies.

As grocery prices continue to rise nationally, the House on Thursday passed an appropriations bill that would cut funding for a program that helps pregnant women and children purchase healthy foods.
By a vote of 213-210, the House passed an appropriations measure to fund the Agriculture Department among other agencies. The bill, which the Senate has yet to consider, aims to cut about 1.5 percent from overall federal agriculture spending in fiscal 2027, according to Republicans. Four House Democrats voted with Republicans to pass the measure, while five Republicans voted against it.
Under the legislation, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children — more commonly known as WIC — would lose $141 million in funding for fruit and vegetable benefits for the nearly 5.4 million children and pregnant and postpartum women enrolled, according to an estimate from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

So disappointed in the WaPo. They of all media outlets, know full well the correct term here is pregnant people. And still they used the offensive and outdated term “pregnant women” repeatedly.

The WaPo has fallen so so far.

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with saying pregnant woman?

[Anonymous]

Maybe get a job

or stop spending your money on necessities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

"Those fetuses and babies, if we give them food, they'll get dependent on it" has to be one of thr worst takes I've ever seen.

The government actually saves a ton of money on WIC. Every dollar spent on WIC saves $2-3 long term because giving kids proper nutrition prevents life long health issues.

https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/issues/the-hidden-cost-of-cutting-wic/

Cutting WIC harms society and costs money.

DP here but just chiming in to say you’re an actual idiot. Life expectancy for someone on government welfare is appallingly low, it’s not saving anyone’s life. You’re probably also the poster who wants 2 year olds eating Doritos on SNAP.

OK now you are getting it. Doritos is owned by PepsoCo. If people get addicted to high calories processed foods, it pays off in the long run to Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Mars etc. Corporations don't yet own apples and carrots in the same way, so there's no need to fund that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So pro life of them.

How much have you given to a pregnant woman in need today?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, because but I'm the PP and I've been a regular supporter of the Partners in Health maternal health program for a decade.

I'm also a monthly donor to the Capital Area Food Bank if you want to discuss food programs.

I'd heavily encourage you to look into donating to both of those charities.

But donors like me (and hopefully you?) aren't going to be able to cover the gap here. This will result in harm to babies and children in communities all over the US.

The govt provides hundreds of billions to feed. On top of that, you mentioned donors so there’s more.
The harm is keeping people reliable of handouts.

"Those fetuses and babies, if we give them food, they'll get dependent on it" has to be one of thr worst takes I've ever seen.

The government actually saves a ton of money on WIC. Every dollar spent on WIC saves $2-3 long term because giving kids proper nutrition prevents life long health issues.

https://www.georgetownpoverty.org/issues/the-hidden-cost-of-cutting-wic/

Cutting WIC harms society and costs money.

DP here but just chiming in to say you’re an actual idiot. Life expectancy for someone on government welfare is appallingly low, it’s not saving anyone’s life. You’re probably also the poster who wants 2 year olds eating Doritos on SNAP.

OK now you are getting it. Doritos is owned by PepsoCo. If people get addicted to high calories processed foods, it pays off in the long run to Pepsi, Nestle, Unilever, Mars etc. Corporations don't yet own apples and carrots in the same way, so there's no need to fund that.

This. The US is no longer about having a healthy workforce or fighting force, we are now owned by corporations who want to make the highest profit. If it doesn't profit the rich, no need to do it.