Yeah ... not only are we paying for abortions in the U.S. with our tax money, now we're funding them in foreign countries. Way to go. 'Course I didn't really expect any better from him irt this issue. More's the pity.
Obama Officials Confirm He Will Fund Foreign Abortions Starting Wednesday
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 19, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Officials with the incoming administration of Barack Obama have confirmed that he will indeed overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office. Despite campaigning on the rhetoric of wanting to reduce abortions, Obama will make one of his first actions promoting them globally.
Meanwhile, some 77 members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking Obama to back down from doing so.
President Bush used an executive order on his first day in office to reinstitute a pro-life policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund international groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries.
While U.S. law prohibits funding abortions directly, Bush's Mexico City Policy expands the law by also prohibiting the funding of pro-abortion groups that either do abortions overseas or lobby pro-life governments to sacrifice their abortion limits.
During the presidential election, pro-life groups issued a clarion call to voters telling them their tax money would be used if Obama were elected and saying he would likely reverse the Mexico City Policy immediately after taking office.
The capital publication Congressional Quarterly reports that top Washington officials tell it that the incoming president will reverse the pro-life measure on his first day as president, on Wednesday.
When Obama overturns the limits on global abortions, he will do so over the objections of dozens of members of Congress.
"As a new administration begins, it is our hope you will work, as you have pledged, to create a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. We urge you to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America's foreign aid programs," the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote Obama on Friday.
They say the policy "ensures that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning. Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotes
abortion."
The members, led by Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, also say it is "insulting" to other nations to promote pro-abortion groups that lobby them to overturn long-standing pro-life laws based on their culture and heritage.
"We also have a responsibility to respect the laws of many developing countries who have laws prohibiting or restricting abortion. It is an insult to fund organizations that are intent on overturning those laws by promoting the Western ideology of abortion on demand," they said.
Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat who sponsored legislation in Congress to reverse the provision, told CQ that somehow putting it in place endangers the health care people in third world nations receive.
But Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of National Right to Life, tells LifeNews.com the Mexico City Policy and Obama's reversing it is all about abortion.
Thus, it appears Obama's move will take money away from non-abortion groups that provide services to poor people in foreign nations.
"One effect of Obama's anticipated order will be to divert many millions of dollars away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method," Johnson explained.
"So, a president who not long ago told the American people that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions, is already effectively promoting the increased use of abortion as a means of population control," Johnson added.
President Reagan first put the Mexico City Policy in place and it is named for a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984 when he introduced it.
President George H.W. Bush continued the pro-life policy, President Clinton overturned it, and President George W. Bush kept it for eight years and threatened to veto any Congressional spending bill reversing it.
Under the Mexico City Policy, funding for family planning programs is not reduced.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
Obama's reversal of Bush's order -- which U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa said was "doing damage to Africa" -- could help slow the transmission of HIV/AIDS in the region. Unlike Presidents Clinton and Bush, however, Obama chose not to use yesterday's anniversary of Roe v. Wade to take this expected course of action, apparently to avoid looking overly combative. Explaining his support for pro-choice policies yesterday, Obama said that Roe v. Wade "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."
Mmm.... ACORN ie SEIU ie Illegal interlopers ie NORAL ie Glbt ie AmeriCorps ie any third world dictator ...
Guess it just depends on what we personally view as wedge issues, mmm?
Actually I think they are so people like Kris get their Christmas wish and don't breed.
Where the heck do you people find these lies and why do think anyone will believe it.
This is rubbish. Post the truth and I will support you, post lies and I will undermine and mock you.
Deal with it.
I always wanted an abortion for Christmas, and instead I always got dolls and toys and stuff.
Kris M., Jan 23, 2009, 9:14pm ES
I am certainly opposed to having my tax dollars paying for those who wish to have an abortion be it here or anywhere else. Bad move on Obama's part.
Jeff H., Jan 23, 2009, 8:52pm EST
we have what is called the Justice Fund. Employees and others give to it to help women who opt for abortion but cannot afford it or part of the Justice Fund goes to help with legal bills to keep the womans right to choose HER right to choose.
Lori F., Jan 23, 2009, 9:19pm EST
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf
Medicaid does not pay for abortion.
Where the heck do you people find these lies and why do think anyone will believe it.
This is rubbish. Post the truth and I will support you, post lies and I will undermine and mock you.
Deal with it.
sharon SugarMomma is a wise woman,, Jan 23, 2009, 10:10pm EST
Does you intellect have a retarded problem? Or are you just void of an intellectual response to what I said? Maybe writing the asinine thing you did was more intelligent than your response so I guess I should feel grateful......
If states make their own rules, the money used to implement those rules would still be taxpayer money, just as Linda said. +shrug+
In any case, some states may make their own rules irt privately funded abortions, maybe even irt Medicaid funded abortions. But I don't think all the states make all their own regulations irt it, else many of them would not provide abortions at taxpayer expense at all. Anyway, this sentence seems to imply it takes a court order for some of them to ... "comply" with maybe someone else's regulations? "Some states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions, although most do so as a result of a specific court order." (reference this page http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf )
=====
And Linda Medicaid is a state run program..each state makes their rules and regulations.
Lori F., Jan 23, 2009, 10:07pm EST
Wrong, Lori, Federal money for Medicaid does pay for abortions in some cases. Also, a lot of states pay for abortions in any case. Tax dollars do pay for abortions.
Linda W., Jan 23, 2009, 10:01pm EST
Excellent links Lee. Unfortunately, you can lead a liberal to knowledge but you can't make them think.
Jeff H., Jan 24, 2009, 12:15am EST
I believe that you will find a measure of taxpayers out there who have no objection to taxes paying for an abortion in certain instances. Dorian is correct, we need to have the same concern for those who have been born as those who may or may not make it to birth to start with.
'This article is simply an effort to stir the pot of distrust, hatred and misunderstanding to generate opposition to the Obama team and his policies. He said what he wanted before he was elected. And he wanted abortions legal and rare, but never banned or non-funded. according to his statements that I heard.
+shrug+ I interpret it this particular issue in this way (paraphrasing several different web sites from both sides of the aisle, from memory).
Before the gag rule was struck down, we were sending money to do counseling irt abstinence and some other forms of contraceptives (but not enough?), provide prenatal care to pregnant women who want to have babies, provide STD testing and counseling, provide pediatric care (care for babies to 18 years old) etc. But only for groups who do not provide or lobby for legalization of abortions in whichever country they are in.
Since the gag rule has been struck down, we are sending tax money to do counseling irt all forms of birth control except abstinence, provide prenatal care to pregnant women who want to have babies, provide STD testing and counseling, provide pediatric care (care for babies to 18 years old) etc .. even if they provide, endorse, advertise, lobby for legalization of abortions.
Is that the gist of it? A 'gist' doesn't have to be a perfect representation, remember.
How I see this is, the groups that provide and lobby for and endorse abortion have to have been getting funds from somewhere all this time ... not as much as they'd like of course. But instead of having only those meager monies to fund their enterprise, now they have U.S. taxpayer money to take care of those incidentals, while 'the other' money goes to fund abortions. Or something fairly close to that.
Thus, we are funding abortions ... if not directly then by supportively taking over all those other expenses so that those groups which are eligible can use other monies to fund abortions.
So while I'm not perfect in real life nor on the internet, and I may be terribly dense by your lights, I'm okay with that. Cause I have to tell you, as long as you hold the opinions you do on this issue if you started saying really nice things about me or telling me how smart I was, I'd be a little worried about my inner compass. I don't mean that in a nasty way and on some other issues that might not be the case; but it's just that ... well, it's the truth irt this issue at this moment in time. +shrug+
Thanks for commenting in any case.
You are really terribly dense, Lee. That's the only way you could interpret what really happened this way. I'm sad for you if this is how you interpret everything you read or hear.
Sandy Knauer, Jan 24, 2009, 11:52am EST
\\\\\This is wrong, the Federal government should not do this at all. Leave the decision up to each State to decide.//////
Better yet, get the government, and that includes state and local, completely out of bedrooms and doctors offices. Make no laws concerning this religious issue and let the respective religions handle it as they see fit. The state has no pony in that race!
Amen!
Let the government, at least the Federal government anyway, get out of bedrooms AND doctor's offices. I totally agree.
If you had any agenda other than imposing your "principles" on others (besides your hypocrite heroes) you would protest tax dollars paying for illegal wars that kill actual people for corporate plunder of their resources. You would protest those already born being sentenced to the concentration camp called poverty. You would get off your misogynist high horse and expand your "concern" beyond the womb. You would know you are chasing your tail because the days of ignorant spook-infested and inbred phuquewads goose stepping all over women's right to choose are over and they're never coming back. Never Again!
Dorian T., Jan 24, 2009, 12:48am E
Obama's claims ... mmm... He said exactly what he was gonna do and he did it. +shrug+ And at the risk of being misunderstood, let me say his actions did not disappoint me.
In any case, ... if he genuinely wanted to reduce abortions he would do it. But in reality, if he reduced abortions (how ever he says he will do it) NARAL would have to withdraw support from him because it would cost their organization, their abortion clinics and their abortion doctors money. Either by way of less government support or by way of losing actual income since the need for abortion had been reduced. Less need for abortion, less need for government support, less need for anyone to pay to have it done even privately = less support for the one who reduced the number of abortions needed and performed. And that just is not gonna happen on Obama's watch.
James said
Obama's desire to reduce abortions was never claimed to be by taking over women's bodies and making them have that baby!
Irt compassion, I do have a little bit of compassion.
Over the years, I found I was able to command some compassion for women who had to make a horrible terrible unthinkable decision in the case of rape, her own imminent death, or for young victims of incest (when abortions were legal only in the first trimester). More for the actual rape or the threat of imminent death than the need for an abortion due to pregnancy caused by the rape, but nonetheless I brought myself along enough to at least *understand* the mindset that allowed the thought of abortion as solution in these cases, in the first trimester.
Not a good compromise as far as I am concerned, not something I would vote for, not something I have taught my own children and never what I will teach my grandchildren; but abortion was and is a fact of life; and so I accepted that ignoble situation on those terms because I could do nothing else.
However (still irt first trimester abortions), my compassion is tested when someone continually (more than once) either refuses to act responsibly by taking advantage of the available help irt contraceptives or "forgets" to use the contraceptives she has access to and gets pregnant (for whatever reason.) then uses abortion as her backup method of birth control (I know it happens cause I had girl friends in h.s. who did it ... and kept doing it on into their early twenties or until they got married. After that I have no idea what they did or didn't do cause we went our separate ways).
In any case ... the first trimester abortions (before 12 weeks) as bad as they are, have become something different. Now it's an (almost?)anytime during the pregnancy thing. And a thing someone other than a parent can authorize for an underage child, usurping not only my right to decide where to spend my money but also making me pay for the privilege of having my parental rights abriged and in some cases abolished.
It's become almost second nature, so that we now live in an atmosphere and culture that makes women do and say and behave in the most callous of ways irt something that should bring a modicum of aversion, maybe a bit of repugnance ... or at the very least somewhat of a dislike for the procedure.
Instead we get offensive adolescent humor more reminiscent of and appropriate to 1st graders discussing pee-pees than of grown women discussing a procedure that is not totally safe for them and kills any chance for what they carry in their womb to have the same chance at life outside the womb as they had:
Kris M., Jan 23, 2009, 9:14pm EST
"I always wanted an abortion for Christmas,
and instead I always got dolls and toys and stuff."
CC Miranda © The ArtRat , Jan 23, 2009, 9:16pm EST
"are these abortions for the people the
soldiers knock up during their tours of duty?"
Also, it seems as if one can have an abortion for almost any reason ... almost on demand (if not truly on demand already in some cases). So, my compassion is .... stretched to the limit irt the almost limitless reasons and excuses and situations women can find which makes it, if not "urgently necessary" then at least desirable or financially prudent for them to exercise their "right" to abortion instead of exercising their right to contraceptive or exercising (at least once in a while) their even more basic and totally more effective right to say no. Yeah, that is also one of our rights as women.
James said
One needs to approach this will a little bit of compassion.
As I implied previously, I came to terms with what came to be the odious reality of first trimester abortions. But the expanded version stretches my compassion to the limit.
And then.... and then there is the abominable ignominy of partial birth abortion ...
I can pull up some compassion for a woman who is in sudden imminent danger of death due to the pregnancy itself or due to some heretofore unknown medical condition or emergency and must make that sudden, horrible unthinkable heartwrenching decision; the choice between her life or, her unborn baby's life.
And none of us really knows what decison we would make if it came down to us or our baby ... at a life or death moment ... we'd maybe all like to think we were parent enough to make the decision to give life to the baby and sacrifice our own for love of the baby; but some of us just can't, weren't brought up that way, or the decision is taken out of our hands for some reason. +shrug+
But in the case of rape or incest ... depending on the age of the victim and her access to outside help and her mental condition ... if abortion was going to be applied to the pregnancy, the decision shoulda already been made before it became neccesary to perform a partial birth procedure instead of what could have been done before the 11 or 12 week mark. Might we expect at least partial responsibility for something that is actually the total responsibility of at least one of the older humans involved?
So, while there are probably situations that might fall under "necessary", pregnancy due to rape should never come to partial birth abortion ... unless the mother was being held against her will in a basement somewhere until there was no other choice left for her ... and even in that case partial birth abortion shouldn't really be a viable choice.
In other words, in my opinion ... there is not enough banked or free floating compassion in the universe for me to draw on, that would make it possible for me to have any to spare for a woman and a doctor who decide to perform a partial birth abortion for any other reason besides the imminent, emergency, sudden onset of a threat to the life of the mother (except maybe in very narrowly defined and sparingly applied instances due to rape or incest of a child under 15 who may not have the maturity, the wherewithal mentally or emotionally, or the sense to get "help" or "relief" sooner).
James said
One needs to approach this will a little bit of compassion.
I believe that you will find a measure of taxpayers out there who have no objection to taxes paying for an abortion in certain instances.
Lee says
I believe there is no dearth of taxpayers out there who either have no objection to taxes paying for abortion (or supporting abortion by paying for other incidentals in relation to "family planning" services) in almost any instance. If it's a "right" then it's got to be defended yaddayadda.
I also believe there are lots of people who voted for Obama who do not support abortion but rationalize it, or defend it, by telling themselves and others (and believing it probably) that they voted their conscience irt the economy (and they may have sincerely done it this way) ... but who now may or may not understand that in voting for their pocket book they gave Obama free reign in regard to abortion by default.
Kind of like um ... knowing there is a bear on the same limb as the beehive, but going in for the honey anyway. Ya just gotta know the forest ranger will be wondering if the bit of honey ya got was worth the loss of your arm to the bear.
Default:
Definition 1. failure to take positive action; neglect.
Example a choice made by default.
Similar Words omission , indifference , neglect
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=default&matchtype=exact
Dorian is correct, we need to have the same concern for those who have been born as those who may or may not make it to birth to start with.
Lee says
Mmmm.... irt what Dorian has to say....
In this thread alone, she practically accused me of having only one thing on my mind ("If you had any agenda other than ...), then went on to tell me what I should be doing instead of what I am doing with my life and time irt my beliefs ("you would protest tax dollars paying for illegal wars..."), called me a misogynist on a high horse, impuned my "concern," as much as insinuated I was a dog chasing my tail. I can only assume I am also lumped in with the "ignorant spook-infested and inbred phuquewads goose stepping all over women's right to choose"
So, since I only know her from these statements and others she made in this thread, it could be that at some other time irt a different subject, maybe it would only take being in a different thread .. I might be interested in what she had to say or post; but at this moment, in this thread, irt this subject ... Seems like there's too much caffeine, and not enough self control going on in that heart and mind. In other words, quoting Dorian to me at this moment, is like me quoting Lifenews to Dorian. +shrug+
But for you ... I think there are those who are called to do certain things and those who are called to do other things. Some are called to work with the mentally challenged, some are called to come alongside the mentally gifted. Some are called to be doctors, some are called to be lawyers. Some of us are called to be football players others are called to basketball. Some are "called" to defend abortion in its myriad incarnations, some are called to defend the unborn.
We do not denegrate those who work with the mentally challenged because they don't work with the mentally gifted. We do not denegrate those who are doctors because they aren't lawyers. We don't denegrate football players because they don't also play basketball. But, many do denegrate those who defend the unborn because of a (whaddyacallit .. a straw man argument?) because of a silly idea that in defending the unborn we must by default be neglecting the already born. +shrug+
I guess then, the answer to your statement, "we need to have the same concern for those who have been born as those who may or may not make it to birth to start with" is a question... Why is it an either/or proposition? +shrug+
This article is simply an effort to stir the pot of distrust, hatred and misunderstanding to generate opposition to the Obama team and his policies.
Lee
This was not my reason for writing it ... I think I wrote it because I was personally appalled and realized I had an outlet for that here on gather. But honestly, now that you mention it, if this one article (and the attached comments) were to have that effect even a little .... it would be like icing on a cake.
I could say the very same thing. I think an option for *me* to decisively finally immutably be allowed to differ might be very welcome indeed.
It shouldn't come up for a binding vote on the whole country at all ... This isn't like roads or schools or national defense... this issue should be as you say ...a personal choice or option and not a national choice legislated through tax on everyone.
Otherwise it is only the pro abortion people like you (and the lobbyists who have Obama's ear) who actually have a choice. The rest of us just move forward in response to the cattle prod of legislation your side has forced "onto everybody else with no option or choice to differ."
I think perhaps maybe possibly it might be a bit of fresh air and a viable idea to have an option on our tax statements ... a check-the-box type of thing. No one gets taxed to provide monies for abortion (other than imminent threat of maternal death possibly through medicaid since they are set up for this already) anywhere in the world unless you check the box. If you check the box, your portion of the needed amount would then be tacked onto *your* taxes due. +shrug+ Kind of like a once-a-year national bake sale for the provision of abortions here and overseas.
I understand abortion is a very contentious issue and both sides have validity>> until they start trying to legislate their own views onto everybody else with no option or choice to differ.
Dorian T., Jan 23, 2009, 9:33pm EST