Obama lifts ban on taxpayer funder abortions

[theweapon]

I can't believe some of these comments...

I'm not religious, but I am pro life. 90%+ of abortions are for birth control, and these in NO way should be funded. Left up to the states to decide? Sure... but there is no way that the government should pay for this.

How is this going to reduce the number of pregnancies/abortions? It's the opposite, maybe if people (not just the women) knew that if a woman got pregnant, big brother government wasn't going to be there to pay and take care of them, they wouldn't take the risk.

Really, I have little sympathy for women who get pregnant and don't want to (please don't nitpick and mention rape)... it's as easy as this.

1) condoms
2) birth control
3) pull out
4) morning after pill

... simple.

thats very very true. imagine if the government didnt help those women who have 6 kids and dont work. then maybe they would use a condom but its so nice to know that the government will take care of your mistake.

 

[El Freako]

I can't believe some of these comments...

I'm not religious, but I am pro life. 90%+ of abortions are for birth control, and these in NO way should be funded. Left up to the states to decide? Sure... but there is no way that the government should pay for this.

How is this going to reduce the number of pregnancies/abortions? It's the opposite, maybe if people (not just the women) knew that if a woman got pregnant, big brother government wasn't going to be there to pay and take care of them, they wouldn't take the risk.

Really, I have little sympathy for women who get pregnant and don't want to (please don't nitpick and mention rape)... it's as easy as this.

1) condoms
2) birth control
3) pull out
4) morning after pill

... simple.

You need to consider a few things in this case...

Firstly:

President Barack Obama on Friday quietly ended the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option.

He is specifically making it legal to support international groups, not American groups, so I don't think American women seeking abortions are necessarily the demographic being focussed on here. These international groups will also be providing information and services to other nations.

Secondly:

1) condoms
2) birth control
4) morning after pill

A lot of developing nations do not have access to many of these options or even information regarding them. I'm specifically referring to developing nations where contraception is still considered evil thanks to the Church. In these places population growth is rampant and unchecked as I said. Women in some of these countries literally breed to death. I grew up in developing nation, this is true. I think it is a good thing if women in these places have access to any avenue available if they do not want another child. Also, it needs to be considered that in a lot of these places abortions already happen but in dirty, unhygienic conditions with barbaric tools used by untrained hands. In these cases it is very common for the women to die as a result.

Really, I have little sympathy for women who get pregnant and don't want to

This is quite a harsh statement. Accidents happen even if you take all the precautions possible.

 

[Ironslave]

You need to consider a few things in this case...

Firstly:


He is specifically making it legal to support international groups, not American groups, so I don't think American women seeking abortions are necessarily the demographic being focussed on here. These international groups will also be providing information and services to other nations.

As Tech mentioned, where does he think he can get the money for this?



Secondly:

A lot of developing nations do not have access to many of these options or even information regarding them. I'm specifically referring to developing nations where contraception is still considered evil thanks to the Church. In these places population growth is rampant and unchecked as I said. Women in some of these countries literally breed to death. I grew up in developing nation, this is true. I think it is a good thing if women in these places have access to any avenue available if they do not want another child. Also, it needs to be considered that in a lot of these places abortions already happen but in dirty, unhygienic conditions with barbaric tools used by untrained hands. In these cases it is very common for the women to die as a result.

Again, where does the money come from? I agree, "back alley" abortions are just horrible, and I also agree that religions have discouraged birth control. But still, America is a sinking shit, and it can't afford to take care of the world in futile ways to control the birth rate.

This is quite a harsh statement. Accidents happen even if you take all the precautions possible.

Is it harsh, but I'm not so worried about being politically correct. If any/all of those methods are used, there should be no way at all that women get pregnant. Getting pregnant is NOT that easy, especially since there are less than 10 days a month that women can get pregnant.

 

[El Freako]

As Tech mentioned, where does he think he can get the money for this?

Again, where does the money come from? I agree, "back alley" abortions are just horrible, and I also agree that religions have discouraged birth control. But still, America is a sinking shit, and it can't afford to take care of the world in futile ways to control the birth rate.

The article makes no mention of him offering funding. It just makes it legal to do so. And either way, despite your financial problems, which the entire world shares, you're still one of the richest countries in the world so offering a bit of foreign aid won't effect you too badly.

Australia's economy is just as fucked up if not more, we're expected to drop to US50c to the dollar by mid year, we were around US85c last year. Yet I still consider it acceptable that we offer foreign aid to less fortunate nations despite our problems. None of us are going to starve to death, our economies have survived recessions before and come strong upon recovery.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Newsfalsh Obama just reversed this policy ..lulz.

Which is a great move cause he got support by approving it in the first place then get more supposrt by reversing it.

It also publically claims him self as not being infallible and aids in his image ... great move imo.

 

[Ironslave]

The article makes no mention of him offering funding. It just makes it legal to do so. And either way, despite your financial problems, which the entire world shares, you're still one of the richest countries in the world so offering a bit of foreign aid won't effect you too badly.

Dude, why would he lift the ban on funding, if he had no intention of giving funds? Rest assured, it will come....

 

[El Freako]

Dude, why would he lift the ban on funding, if he had no intention of giving funds? Rest assured, it will come....

And that will be a good day...

CNN goes into greater detail on his intentions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html?iref=newssearch

Obama reverses abortion-funding policy
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.

Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a "political wedge issue," adding that he had "no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."

The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.

"It is time we end the politicization of this issue," Obama said. "In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world."

Obama's memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester.

The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.

The policy, referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was initially announced at a population conference in Mexico City.

Reversing the previous administrations' stance on the policy was one of Clinton's first acts as president in January 1993 and the very first executive order issued by Bush on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Critics, including Planned Parenthood, called Bush's move a "legislative ambush."

He defended his action, saying, "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."

"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.

"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.

"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."

In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."

"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."

The president added that he looked forward to "working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund."

The Bush administration has repeatedly withheld funding authorized by Congress for the U.N. fund, saying the agency has funded a forced sterilization program in China. The fund has repeatedly denied that accusation.

"By signaling his intention to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, President Barack Obama is signaling his re-engagement with the international community on the critical challenge of improving reproductive health around the world," UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth said.

"For the past seven years, UNFPA funding has been a victim of false accusations and misinformation that had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with sound policy," he said.

"Approximately 180 industrialized and developing countries, including all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, contribute to UNFPA. The United States was the only country to withhold funding for political reasons."

 

[Tech]

Imo, the real issue isn't the abortion aspect....it's the fact that our federal government thinks it's ok to give away American taxpayers money to other countries.

 

[El Freako]

Apparently we're were as ass-backwards as you guys were on this issue.

http://www.ippf.org/en/News/Intl+news/Australia+Lifting+Gag+Rule+on+Foreign+Aid+for+Abortion.htm

Australia Lifting Gag Rule on Foreign Aid for Abortion?
The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) is considering lifting a 12-year-old ban on foreign aid funding for abortion services, a proposal which has sparked significant divisive debate across the entire Australian political spectrum.

The current policy prevents Australian aid funds from being used for "activities that involve abortion training or services, or research trials or activities, which directly involve abortion drugs."

In practice, this has prohibited aid recipients from providing women access to abortion services, even when an abortion would be necessary to save her life, as well as information and education about safe and unsafe abortions.

The parallels to the US global gag rule are obvious. The Australian policy was instigated by 'pro-life' independent Senator Brian Harradine. Despite the fact that Senator Harradine retired in 2005, the aid restrictions have remained.

Senator Harradine also secured a ban on emergency contraception, which was overturned in 2002, and RU-486 (Mifepristone), which was overturned in February 2006 after a conscience vote in Federal Parliament.

A strong opponent can been found in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, which in May 2007 published a paper arguing for amendment of the funding restrictions.

The report, "Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals in the Australian Aid Program - the Way Forward" rightly described the restrictions as "cruel and illogical."

The report also recommended that family planning, contraception, and sexual and reproductive health services should be integrated with HIV/AIDS programs and that the proportion of Australia's overseas aid budget devoted to sexual and reproductive health should be increased to at least 10 percent.

At the time the report was released, in the lead up to the last Australian election, it was ignored by former Prime Minister Howard.

However, change is in the air.

The current Prime Minister Rudd, who beat Howard in the last election in January 2008 thanks to voters seeking fresh leadership and new ideas, is thankfully reconsidering the issue.

This change could not possibly be needed more urgently given the grave harm to women's health and rights that result from the narrow-minded restrictions.

Australia's aid program focuses on Asia and the Pacific, with selective assistance also provided to Africa and the Middle East.

Approximately, 50 percent of unsafe abortions globally occur in the Asia-Pacific region and about one-third of these results in maternal death.

I recently reported on the dire family planning needs of East Timor, a country that suffers 68,000 unsafe abortions a year. Australia has indeed been one of the strongest supporters of East Timor, with an estimated overseas development aid for 2008-2009 of $AUS96.3 million.

It is truly tragic that misdirection of these funds in any way contributes to the stark number of maternal deaths amongst Timorese women resulting from unsafe abortion.

Australia will also have an estimated overseas development aid of $AUS113.5 million for South Asia from 2008-2009, covering Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

Nepal has already experienced hampered family planning services under the global gag rule, reflecting negatively on the likely impact of AusAID's guidelines. In India, too, at least 18,000 women die every year as a result of unsafe abortion.

Any policy that denies women access to comprehensive family planning information and safe legal abortion services leaves women little choice but to seek unsafe services, despite the likelihood of death or the health complications that inevitably result.

Concerning for those waiting for change, however, is the voice of Senator Ron Boswell, a conservative of the National Party. Boswell is leading efforts to keep the restrictions in place. Warning Prime Minister Rudd that he could face a backlash from Christian voters, he recently commented: "[Prime Minister Rudd] cuddled up to the churches for the last election...If he does this to them then they'll turn upon him." Ultimately, the fate of women's health in the region is largely in the hands of Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who will make the final decision on whether to amend the government policy.

It is an inherent contradiction that Australia's overseas development agency, whose aim is "to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development" has guidelines that restrict women's access to a full range of family planning information and services.

Australia's "aid" to countries in the region cannot be truly effective unless it aligns with, rather than is contrary to, the countries' needs and priorities. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the centrality of reproductive health to development with a high-level commitment to achieving universal access to reproductive health by 2015.

This clearly reflects the importance of integrating this goal in overall strategies for sustainable development.

It is not that the Australian Government does not recognize the value of the MDGs, but rather its focus reflects a prioritization of some goals, like climate change and business development, over others like reproductive health.

Chief of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance Jane Singleton has encapsulated the issue: "This is not about providing abortions in countries where it is illegal but providing full access to family planning and education about unsafe abortion and where abortion is legal, to safe abortion."

Interestingly, Australia has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, with relatively broad accessibility on paper and in practice.

If the rights of Australian women to make choices about their reproductive health are guaranteed, there is no reason why these rights protections should be denied to women in the region.

An AusAID commitment to ending poverty and gender inequity in the region demands abolition of these funding restrictions.

 

[El Freako]

Imo, the real issue isn't the abortion aspect....it's the fact that our federal government thinks it's ok to give away American taxpayers money to other countries.

What is wrong with foreign aid?

None of us in the first-world are going to starve.

 

[Tech]

What is wrong with foreign aid?

There are good reasons why the U.S. Constitution does not allow our government to send taxpayer money overseas as foreign aid. One of the best is that coerced "charity" is not charity at all, but theft. If someone picks your pocket and donates the money to a good cause, it does not negate the original act of theft.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8926

 

[Ironslave]

Freako, if you feel this is a cause you support, why don't you donate your own money?

(this always gets a predictable response).

 

[Samoan-Z]

I'll donate ... I got like a couple cent in my pocket .... that's about all i'd be willing to donate.

 

[El Freako]

Freako, if you feel this is a cause you support, why don't you donate your own money?

(this always gets a predictable response).

You have me there, I haven't donated anything in a while actually.

But I do think this is side-tracking the argument a little. I know you are libertarian to the core and I understand why but I just believe that a degree of assistance is warranted for those less fortunate than ourselves. I suppose I am mildly socialist in that regard. Granted that the channelling of the monies needs to be carefully monitored so that it does not end up in the wrong hands (as it so often does).

 

[DCuts85]

Boo Public Funded Abortions. Yeah sluts who let me fuck them

 

[Ironslave]

You have me there, I haven't donated anything in a while actually.

But I do think this is side-tracking the argument a little.

It's not at all... it's the premise of if you support it, and you want your money to go towards it, great! ... However, I don't, and I don't want mine to go towards it.

 

[Ironslave]

Boo Public Funded Abortions. Yeah sluts who let me fuck them

said article mentions nothing regarding hired prostitutes.

 

[El Freako]

Well I'm just going to leave it there and say that I'm glad that this happened and I also hope that my government does the same.

 

[Braaq]

How about we send some humanitarian aid to the people in the United States.

Then, once all our problems are fixed....we'll see if we can help the poor people in Africa.

Exactly Pretty sums up everything that needs to be said about this. Fiscal conservatives should be irate about this.

 

[GH2H]

WAIT AND SEE

HE WILL DESTROY THE UNITED STATES .IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN .