# And so it starts - Bush and abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2001, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332 "2001-01-23T00:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/81 "2001-01-24T00:59:30Z")
D’oh! It’s fund TRAINING of death squads! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/82 "2001-01-24T01:01:41Z")
> [@](#): > > He said on the campaign trail he > would sign legislation outlawing ``partial birth’’ abortion. > > ``` > Good for him. As far as I'm concerned once a fetus is viable on its own it is too late for an > abortion. Partial birth abortion of a viable fetus is murder IMO, not that that has anything to do > with the topic at hand. > > ``` That had nothing to do with my post. I just wanted to post the entire quote. I was mainly concerned with the _first_ part of the quote. “Bush opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman” > [@](#): > > :Lists some alarming news story concerning children suffering from aids which has > absolutely nothing to do with either the topic at hand or the issue I > requested a cite on:: > > ``` > Sorry Pepperlandgirl, but that has absolutely nothing to do with either the topic at hand ofr the > issue that I requested a cite on. > > ``` What I thought you meant was a cite that says that AIDS is an epidemic in Africa. Those were the numbers I could find. If this is what you wanted, you should have been more clear. > [@](#): > > \*Scylla said \*This being the case, the opposite of what you argue seems most logically likely. Money going > into African Social services will be more focussed on Aids prevention, by the simple fact that it > isn’t going towards abortions. From [International Planned Parenthood Federation](http://www.ippf.org/newsinfo/pressreleases/Bush_Gag_Rule.htm) > [@](#): > > What will suffer are the programs that provide women, men and young people with the information and services they need to reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancies and, consequently, the demand for abortions From the same site, some of the other services that will be affected by the “gag rule” > [@](#): > > \*The “Be-Wise” youth center in Ghana includes a reproductive health clinic and an Internet center. The center is a gathering point for youth and a base for outreach activities like the ‘Big Sister’ program, which works on girls’ self-esteem, as well as their sexual and reproductive health, including HIV prevention. > > \*A Tirana youth center, set up by the Albanian Family > Planning Association, that provides condoms, emergency contraception, medical referrals and a telephone hotline, as well as career advice, skills training and entertainment. Finally, from the same site: > [@](#): > > It is a principal position of IPPF policy that abortion is not a method of family planning. The IPPF is committed to reducing the numbers of abortions worldwide by ensuring that contraception is widely and safely available. Education and information are critical to this work. People and organizations that provide them should not be gagged." > [@](#): > > \*Scylla said \* > You cannot reasonably suggest that cutting off funding to agencies that support abortions and > also provide Aids relief and education is causing Aids deaths. First of all, lack of funding doesn’t > cause Aids. From [Bush is a bully](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010123/pl/abortion_reaction_dc_1.html) > [@](#): > > It bans financial support for organizations if any of their funding, even if it doesn’t come from the United States, is spent on abortion. > The International Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation (IPPF) predicted programs to prevent unplanned pregnancies will suffer the most – not abortion services which have been ineligible for U.S. funds for decades. It does not mention AIDS and STDs specifically, however, when one learns how to properly use a condom etc, one is learning how to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as how to prevent STDs. > [@](#): > > \*Scylla said \* > Hopefully you are not suggesting that free abortions paid for by the U.S. are going to help solve genital mutilation, domestic violence, and domestic rape. Nor is the U.S. Government saying that she can’t have an abortion. The U.S. Government is simply not going to pay for it. There is a huge distinction there, and I think I mentioned it before. Next time, please read my post a little more carefully. I was using rape, violence, and FGM to illustrate my point that women are already second class citizens in Africa. _Current law bans the use of U.S. funds for any abortions in foreign countries._ The international planned parenthood organizations do many, _many_ things other than abortion! > [@](#): > > As far as your contention that ‘most Americans are in favor of abortion, in cases of rape and > incest’ Survey Says YES, sorry Scylla you’re incorrect here. Thank you **wring** for the cite! > [@](#): > > No, we bloody well are not. Using U.S. funds to provide abortions overseas has been illegal since > 1975. What we are talking about is withdrawing funding from family planning and social service > organizations that even dare to speak the “A-word.” Such a restriction of free speech would (or > should) be unthinkable within our borders, and I for one am shamed that the Federal government > does not think that our principles follow our money. Thank you **pldennison** for putting it better than I could. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/83 "2001-01-24T01:17:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flymaster \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > > \*\*Not funding organizations becuase they merely counsel regarding abortions is troublesome, IMO. > > > > Withholding funding from an organization that merely mentions the “A word” is blackmail. \*\* > > And yet, it’s what Bush’s new order requires. \*\* I din’t see that in either the OP article, or In Bush’s release. From The OP article: > [@](#): > > Current law bans the use of U.S. funds for any abortions in foreign countries. > Former Presidents Reagan and Bush further banned U.S. aid to international > groups that use their own money to support abortion - either through > performing the surgery, counseling on abortion as a family-planning option, or > lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy - in what became known as > the Mexico City policy because it was announced by Reagan at a 1984 > population conference there. I do not think that is saying what you think it is saying. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/84 "2001-01-24T01:35:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Your quote: > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **Not funding organizations becuase they merely counsel regarding abortions is troublesome, IMO.** The article: > [@](#): > > counseling on abortion as a family-planning option Your quote: > [@](#): > > \*\*Withholding funding from an organization that merely mentions the “A word” is blackmail. \*\* I assume that by mention, you’re not counting stuff like “Abortion is an abomination against God!” I can’t imagine any way to “mention” the word in a clinical context without “performing the surgery, counseling on abortion as a family-planning option, or lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy.” If you could give me such a usage, I’ll retract the blackmail part of my statement. But you have clearly said that restricting money based on counseling is “troubling,” and that’s what Bush’s order does. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/85 "2001-01-24T01:36:28Z")
Ok…imagine that there’s a \*\* in there somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Flymaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c4cdca/32.png) [@Flymaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flymaster)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/86 "2001-01-24T01:37:48Z")
GAH! And then, imagine that the unbold vB symbol appeared in that post… _grumble_ ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/87 "2001-01-24T01:57:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > ``` > Current law bans the use of U.S. funds for any abortions in foreign countries. > Former Presidents Reagan and Bush further banned U.S. aid to international > groups that use their own money to support abortion - either through > performing the surgery, counseling on abortion as a family-planning option, or > lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy - in what became known as > the Mexico City policy because it was announced by Reagan at a 1984 > population conference there. > > ``` > > \*\* > > ``` > I do not think that is saying what you think it is saying. > > ``` Then, pray tell. What _is_ it saying? To me it looks like it is saying “If the A-word is mentioned in any context, than the organization will not receive money from the US” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/88 "2001-01-24T02:07:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Funding organizations that fund abortions is funding abortions. That’s what I mean by a distinction without meaning. Just because you are unable to grasp the distinction does not mean it does not exist. FYI to Connor: Scylla is male. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/89 "2001-01-24T02:41:21Z")
It’s seems pretty clear to me to that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from organizations that are promoting abortion as a family planning tool, or lobbying to have it used as such. This is different than blanket censorship of the entire concept. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/90 "2001-01-24T02:43:13Z")
The Ryan: I didn’t say I couldn’t grasp the distinction. I said it was without meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/91 "2001-01-24T03:06:34Z")
Flymaster: I guess it’s catching. I had the bold problem twice already. What bothers me about the edict, brought on by what Pldennison said, is that not actively funding abortion and abortion related activities is one thing, and I think such a stance is correct, as the U.S. Government should not be promoting what is an elctive and personal choice for an individual. Bush’s stance is of course not the neutral stance that I would prefer of absolutely neither support nor interference, but the activist stance against abortion. His move, as it stands now, brings us more towards true neutrality: We do not actively assist abortion in any way whatsoever. Doubtless Bush will push it further in activism **against** abortion. He is after all pro-life. This however is as far as I go. Though I think abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or medical necessity, I support the woman’s right to choose and make her own decision concerning her body rather than have my morality inflicted upon her. When you start talking about late term abortions that are past the point of fetal viability, I think it’s probably too late for a woman to decide to have an abortion, and I no longer support her choice. In between is a great grey area where I’m not sure what the law should be. I don’t think government should be promoting abortion or supporting those that do. I am not so naive as to believe that the withholding of funds can be used as a tool of blackmail and activism against abortion. Any move the other way can be used as a tool of activism to promote abortion though, so this is as good a place as any to draw the line, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/92 "2001-01-24T03:13:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*It’s seems pretty clear to me to that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from organizations that are promoting abortion as a family planning tool, or lobbying to have it used as such. > \*\* It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from organizations that inform pregnant women of their legal options, to attempt to make one of those options disappear for lack of anyone providing information. Wouldn’t it be more honest to just overturn Roe v. Wade? As PuddleGlum says, if you believe in it, then say it, and get yourself elected to do it. A death of a thousand cuts is just hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/93 "2001-01-24T03:34:02Z")
hansel: I had sincerely thought that I addressed your point pretty clearly in my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/94 "2001-01-24T03:40:03Z")
From the cite in the OP (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > Former Presidents Reagan and Bush further banned U.S. aid to international groups that use their own money to support abortion - either through performing the surgery, **counseling on abortion as a family-planning option** , or lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy It’s worth noting that in clinical medicine, “counseling” is the general term for “providing information to the patient”. If I talk to the patient for a minute or two about smoking cessation, I say in my note that I “counseled the patient on smoking cessation”. This is my problem with the restriction. When a pregnant woman comes to a medical clinic, the doctor should be free to counsel her on all her available options, because anything less (IMO) is malpractice. A strict reading of this restriction could prevent doctors in any federally-funded international program from doing so. (I don’t have any reason to suspect that the regulation won’t be given the strictest of readings.) Medical and other family-planning personnel should be free to inform women that abortion is an option without fear of losing federal funds. They should be able to tell her about the procedure and its risks, and even tell her where she can have it done. Organizations who encourage women to have abortions should not only lose their federal funding, but should be shut down completely. However, there is a world of difference between “encourage” and “provide information about”. Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/95 "2001-01-24T03:48:42Z")
DoctorJ: Thank you for the clarification. In the immortal words of Robert E. Lee upon being informed after the fact that the Federal position had been reinforced prior to Picket’s charge: “I did not know that.” (regarding “counseling.”) I think your asessment and opinion are dead-on the target I was trying to hit. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/96 "2001-01-24T04:06:05Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s seems pretty clear to me to that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from > organizations that are promoting abortion as a family planning tool, or lobbying to have it used as > such. Are you ignoring my posts and the links I provide? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by pepperlandgirl_ > \*\*It is a principal position of IPPF policy that abortion is not a method of family > planning. \*\* The IPPF is committed to reducing the numbers of abortions worldwide by > ensuring that contraception is widely and safely available. Education and > information are critical to this work. People and organizations that provide them > should not be gagged." Bolding mine. Bush is withholding funds from the IPPF. The IPPF does not advocate abortion as a method of family planning. However, they do offer counseling (as defined by **Doctor J** ) So, they do not get any money, at all. This hurts them, as I already outlined in my previous thread. That is why Bush is completely wrong on this issue. Why are you still arguing in support of him? > [@](#): > > Organizations who encourage women to > have abortions should not only lose their federal funding, but should be shut down completely. > However, there is a world of difference between “encourage” and “provide information about”. Since I have so thoughtfully provided information about a major organization that does not advocate abortion as a family planning tool, can you please provide information about an organization that does? Obviously if there is one that does, and breaks a major law by using US funds to perform the abortions, then it would be very pertinant to this debate. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/97 "2001-01-24T04:14:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*hansel: > > I had sincerely thought that I addressed your point pretty clearly in my previous post. \*\* If you mean your point about the neutrality of not funding something that is an elective and personal choice (I was posting while you wrote that), then I have to disagree. Abortion is a legal option. Cutting funding for discussing a legal option weighs **against** that option; making funding conditional on avoiding the mere mention of an option is a positive prohibition. It is not neutrality, it’s subtle activism. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/98 "2001-01-24T04:24:51Z")
Pepperlandgirl: No, I was not ignoring your posts (didn’t I respond at length to the two previous?) I hadn’t worked my way through the last one when DoctorJ posted. My apologies. DoctorJ’s specific conclusion that Bush’s ruling goes too far as it handicaps a Doctor’s ability to do his job re: proper counseling seems pretty flawless, specific and concrete. Doubtless, I will muddle through the implications and adjust my thinking suitably. Your general conclusion that Bush and all Republicans/conservatives are hypocrites (as you stated,) doesn’t necessarily follow. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/99 "2001-01-24T13:30:05Z")
You can call abortion a “woman’s right to choose” but a LOT of people in this world see abortion as legalized infanticide. W is one of them. Since he believes that aborting a fetus is no different than taking a knife to your newborn, surely you can understand why he wants to end this practice. You don’t have to agree with him to then understand why he thinks it is an outrage to spend tax dollars supporting this practice throughout the world. The same argument can be made re capital punishment. A lot of Americans support capital punishment and a lot of Americans are adamantly opposed to it. The latter believe that executing a criminal is akin to legalized murder. Whether or not you agree with this premise, surely you can understand WHY they take this position, and why they work tirelessly to end capital punishment altogether. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332/100 "2001-01-24T13:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s seems pretty clear to me to that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from > > organizations that are promoting abortion as a family planning tool, or lobbying to have it used as > > such. > > Are you ignoring my posts and the links I provide? > > \*\* Speaking of ignoring posts…are YOU ignoring Connor and my posts about your characterization of pro life posters in regards to the rape/incest exception? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-so-it-starts-bush-and-abortion/51332.md?page=6)