The link:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010122/ts/bush_abortion.html
So, Bush is starting to act out his anti-abortion stance.
He seems to have begun his term in quite a religious way, and I wonder how far he’ll go.
I can’t really tell how strong his Christian beliefs come over to you Americans, but for a Finn like me it seems borderline fundamentalist (there isn’t much religion in politics here).
So, enlighten me. How much does this worry you people?
It worries me a great deal. He doesn’t seem to realize that with this, he’s sentenced many people in sub saharan Africa to die a death of ignorance, as many of the “pro choice” international organizations are also the ones that provide AIDS education. Sad, and frightening.
It’s going to be a long 4 years.
Doesn’t worry me at all. Bush said: “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad…”
I agree wholeheartedly. Why should my tax money go to pay for overseas abortions? What moral claim has any non-U.S. citizen to American tax dollars? Why should our tax dollars pay to promote abortion as a valid option?
Well, I know some people here might say it’s better to kill foreigners now while they are young than to have to kill them in 18 years in a war (18 is the draft age here in the US), but hey: can’t you people find the money to kill your own children? I mean, waiting until they are born and dashing them on stones or something the old fashioned way? Why should we pay for you people to have all the latest high tech gizmos? We’ve got our own problems to solve. You want food, water, shelter – fine. You want death machines? Well, I would hope even those who are pro-abortion would respect the fact that pro-lifers really don’t want their money going to pay for what they consider murder.
But he’s opposed to abortion funding ‘here’ as well, ie. the United States.
While your reasoning is acceptable to me (you have no obligation to use taxpayer’s money on any kind of foreign aid, of course), is it Dubya’s reasoning?
He seems to be more concerned with the religious implications of the subject matter.
JMullany, what you have to realize is that this is NOT a ban on using US money to fund abortions. Rather, it is a ban on giving US money to organizations who are PRO CHOICE. Therefore, many organizations that do many other things, but happen to be pro choice or provide abortions lose ALL funding from the US. This is a very serious matter, and will lead to the deaths of many people whose only “crime” is ignorance of AIDS and its effects.
Well, abortions here only cost a few hundred dollars – maybe a weeks pay at minimum wage. Surely all these pro-choice groups can come up with some sort of aid program for those few mothers-to-not-be who can’t scrape together the required funds.
I mean, I can understand the position that it is better to eliminate “the problem” before it grows up and becomes (some presume) a burden on society. But I can’t see the need for federal dollars towards such an endevour.
He does seem to be a God-fearing man. Most of our presidents have been. If that is the lense he wants to see this through, fine by me.
Fuck what he said! Look at what he did. Here’s a quote from that article:
In other words, no family-planning groups abroad that have anything to do with abortion will get any funds whatsever from the U.S. government. God, what fucking small-minded idiocy we have eminating from the White House once again! 1459 days left and counting…
Oh, please. I’m sure there are plenty of groups which perform AIDS education who do not run abortion clinics. In fact, those groups will end up with even more money to stop the spread of AIDS since less money will be doled out to promote abortion.
PLEASE tell me you’re kidding, jmullaney? Are you saying that we should get rid of people who are a drain on our society simply because they’re poor and foreign?
True. I can agree with Bush on some of this. Yes, I do not feel my tax dollars should pay for abortions here in the U.S. or elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is, these groups provide more than abortions. They provide important literature and provide awareness and classes on how to combat STD’s and also how to avoid pregnancy.
I was very frighthened listen to talk radio here in L.A. where the host of the show a “moderate” said that he belives Bush should go further and not give any money to these groups, domestic or foreign, which made me worry a lot about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, provides first and foremost information about STD’s, pregnancy and how to avoid both. I can only imagine how much programs like Planned Parenthod play a role in areas like Africa, which is being hit with the worst onslaught of AIDS in it’s history.
Mr. Bush, has too much fear about the “big bad gubment” taking peoples money away. Sure, everyone would like to have lower taxes, but I am more than willing to keep my taxes exactly how they are and even pay more, if they go to programs International Parent Aid or even more, Education. Bush, who prided himself on his great education standard, started off his presidency by using the surplus to send money back to the taxpayers, which would not be so bad if our school systems were not so decrepid.
As the greatest world power, we in the U.S. need to learn how to share our vast resources with those who have few or none. Bring me your poor, your tired, huddled masses has to mean something in today’s society.
As for timing, I think President Bush is trying to send an underlying message by announcing this on the 28th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Seriously now, Mr. Bush, could you not have found a better day to do this?
Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion are not two contradictive(is that the right word?) terms. You scare me, Mr. Bush.
[sigh in wonderment]I guess theres nothing I can do now, but what and see.[/SIW]
jmullaney: Well, I would hope even those who are pro-abortion would respect the fact that pro-lifers really don’t want their money going to pay for what they consider murder.
Well, I would hope that even those who are anti-choice (which is just as accurate a designation as “pro-abortion”) would respect the fact that pacifists really don’t want their money going to military aid to pay for what they consider murder. And that animal rights activists really don’t want their money going to pay for what they consider murder. And that death penalty opponents really don’t want their money going to pay for what they consider murder.
No, you say? Pacifists and animal rights activists and death penalty opponents don’t have to have their preferences respected when it comes to the use of their tax dollars? My, how interesting. Face it jmullaney, there is hardly an institution or individual in this nation that isn’t morally opposed to at least some of the myriad things our tax dollars are used for. Why should abortion opponents be the only ones who deserve to have their particular moral idiosyncracies catered to?
The fact is, LEGALLY SPEAKING, ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. And the law of the land currently declares and upholds a woman’s right to choose an abortion. While that law stands, Bush’s attempts to restrict access to abortion by denying public funds for it are a matter of trampling on reproductive rights. I respect anybody’s principled personal opposition to abortion or any other act they consider immoral, but I do not consider personal opposition a sufficient excuse for a President to substitute his own personal morality for the law of the land. And when Bush defers to the moral qualms of abortion opponents but not to those of, say, death penalty opponents in regulating the use of public funds, that is exactly what he’s doing.
Whoops! Meant to say, just abroad. Sorry! My mind was elsewhere.
http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/04/24/pregnantgirl/index.html
Something like this…still want to deny abortion rights in cases of rape and incest, Mr. Ashcroft?
This is somewhat of tangent, but when I think of this together with Bush’s idea for the Office of Faith-Based Affairs, I can’t help but to feel that in Bush’s America being a good follower of Christian religious values will get an organisation advantages as far as funding from the federal government goes.
IMO it goes quite a bit against the spirit of the 1st Amendment, even if it doesn’t violate the letter.
Maintaining reproductive rights will be a battle, same as it’s been under every President since Nixon. The “review” of RU-486 by those looking for any excuse to ban it will be an important focus.
As for the article linked in the OP, I’m puzzled by the reference in the last sentence. Bush has “signaled quick action to reverse Clinton policies supporting access to abortion”. Is this a statement of fact, or an editorial?
Talk radio is scary all over.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
And I’m positive that none of these groups that got funding cut actually provide abortion services. Of course I’d probably be asked for some evidence of that. Would you care to provide some evidence of your assertation?
Jackmannii: Maintaining reproductive rights will be a battle, same as it’s been under every President since Nixon.
True, but not every President actively tries to make it more difficult—witness Clinton’s reversal of the Reagan/Bush “global gag rule” described in that article:
*As for the article linked in the OP, I’m puzzled by the reference in the last sentence. Bush has “signaled quick action to reverse Clinton policies supporting access to abortion”. Is this a statement of fact, or an editorial? *
Sounds like a statement of fact to me; he is indeed reversing at least one of Clinton’s policies supporting access to abortion, the one I just mentioned. And Clinton went on record on this same anniversary a few years ago as a supporter of abortion rights:
Which, except for the “rare” part, seems to be indeed diametrically opposed to Bush’s stated policies. So the comment you wondered about sounds like sober fact to me. Pretty sobering, too.
Guin – yes, I was only making a “Modest Proposal” 
That there are groups that do Aids education that don’t lobby foreign countries to legalize abortion nor perform them? You really need a cite?
:shrug: one step at a time.
Don’t blame me – I voted for Nader.
:rolleyes: If they cared that much, they would drop out of the system and then they won’t have tax dollars going to any of these things.
LEGALLY SPEAKING, FLYING A KITE IS OK TOO. I don’t see the government doling out money for kites, do you?
Yes. Specifcly I want to see that there are groups thatr are large enough to step up and take the place of the larger groups, now that they aren’t getting funding. I want to see that they will be able to provide all the non-abortion services, and will be able to do it as fairly as the other groups.