As others have pointed out, Bush has not done anything for other people who don’t want their money going to controversial causes. Only abortion. hmmmmmm…
and as I pointed out, and Tejota after me, most of you haven’t even bothered checking the facts… How lazy, and sad.
Doh. you snuck in dude.
What about Israel? Gun control? Support for dictators? Attacking the Sudan? biotechnology? World Bank? Environment?
you’re overstating Milo
oldscratch: The U.S. population generally isn’t split 50-50 on any of those issues, and one side doesn’t view the other’s as supporting infanticide.
I’m overstating the divisiveness of abortion? Really?
The US isn’t split 50-50 on this particular abortion issue either.
and overstating compared to other issues. NOt overstating when taken as itself.
those “freedom” -loving Republicans.
My ass.
I figured out what George is doing, though. I’ve been all freaked out wondering why he is being SUCH a BLATANT dick, flagrantly doing everything he can to piss off liberals… it’s because he * knows *. He knows he only has two years, tops. So he’s saying, in effect, “Fuck it. Let’s try to jam through everything we can as fast as we can and who cares how it looks. I don’t stand a chance in hell of being re-elected no matter what I do, so why calibrate? Let’s go for broke! YEEHA!!!”
I hate him I hate him I hate him.
Really. So it doesn’t matter what good they do. Feed the poor, teach farming or build roads or hospitals. If they also mention (or, god forbid, actual perform abortions!) then we should just cut off all of their funding?
I don’t think you can honestly call that a pro-choice position.
True. But public funds aren’t involved, unless by ‘involved’ you mean ‘in the same building’.
True, there probably was and is) some cheating. But no NEW rules are required. Bush only needed to enforce the old rules. (Why is this starting to sound like a gun debate?)
tj
A disclaimer first, I am pro-choice and don’t have a big problem with tax dollars going to education and other things.
But, the argument that the an organization that does other things besides abortion but uses there own money for their abortion councilling is dumb. If they are getting money from Uncle Sam then it frees up their own money for other things that Uncle Sam might object to. An example to try to make clear what I’m saying:
XYZ Aid has a budget of $1,000,000. $800,000 comes from donations or whatever. The other $200,000 comes from Uncle Sam. Now if $300,000 goes to abortion issues it comes from a pool of money some of which comes from our taxes.
Like I said, I have no moral objection to taxes going to abortion concilling, birth control, preventing STD’s or whatever. It’s just that the argument “they use there own money for the abortion stuff” struck me as not quite right.
oldscratch
**
Technically correct, but the U.S. can be characterized as being fairly evenly split on the issue.
According to a recent CNN/USA Today poll, 42 percent of Americans are anti-abortion rights; 48 percent are pro-abortion rights. This pro-choice site disputes those poll results, but all of the results cited in the article taken at various times indicate to me that the country is fairly evenly divided on the abortion issue.
As to whether I’m overstating it in comparison to other issues, I can’t believe you actually think that, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
What if I made you fork over money to me to pay for a computer so I can continue to post in Great Debates?
I bet you’d have a problem with that.
Tejota:
**
Correct. When it comes to the particular issue of abortions, because of its unique dynamics.
Forgive me for being less inclined than you to spend anti-abortion-rights people’s money on promoting abortions. Private organizations exist to help women without means receive abortions, and those organizations should be privately promoted all over the world by other pro-choicers like myself.
You telling me what I’m entitled to think and whether it’s legitimate is not of particular concern to me.
Not if, as he 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…”
And since you brought up guns - taxpayer dollars don’t pay for the gun of any non-cop, non-soldier, private citizen I’m aware of.
Contras? Laotian drug lords? Afgani druglords?
any number of other private citizens.
They are? DO you even know what the School of the Americas is? If you do, please explain how it is a matter of “general public policy that applies to the public at large.”
**
It does, unless you think that Federally-funded crop insurance for tobacco growers doesn’t keep the price lower than it would normally be.
While he’s explaining that, I’d also like to know how vouchers fall into that group. After all, if somebody chooses to send their kid to a private school, should my tax dollars fund their kid’s religious education?
OK, so that would take us way off on a tangent. But the point remains…
and to murk up the waters again. Correct me if I mis-remember, but during the debates, wasn’t Bush asked specifically if he would attempt to prevent the long awaited FDA approval of RU 486? and wasn’t his answer the rock solid “I don’t think as President that there would be any action that I could take about that?” or something to that effect (saying roughly that whatever his personal views on the drug may have been that the FDA would have jurisdiction on it, and as President there would be no possible action to take or not take regarding the approval process?)
seems he’s found a way :
Bush orders review of approval for RU 486.
And, for those in the audience who were decrying US attempts to assist any foreign country with birth control at any level, please understand that the aforementioned action affected (in 1999) 15 million dollars of a 372.5 million dollar family planning aid budget to the United States Agency for International Development, so the action was largely symbolic in nature. here
naturally, the information that abortion rates in the countries assisted has already been declining doesn’t factor into the rational.
(and David B is of course, correct about vouchers being an obvious individual choice vs. public policy, Scylla, so the objection remains)
Well, the school of the Americas trains soldiers in counterinsurgency and such to fight drug cartels. It’s a matter of both foreign and domestic policy as well as upholding the law.
School vouchers seek to put a band-aid on the arterial hemmorhage of our public shool systems failing. Quality education of children concerns everybody. This last may be a flawed policy in it’s execution, but it is legitimately a matter of public policy, as it is Government’s responsibiliity to make a quality education available to all.
Whether or not to have an abortion is in all but extreme cases strictly a personal choice.
What Bush’s order does is make organizations choose. Are they more concerned with family planning or abortions? The ones that are concerned with family planning will change and adapt the ones that are more concerned with abortions will have to get their money from people voluntarily.
There is a way to keep taxpayer money from causes you find abhorrent. Find someone who agrees with you and then elect them.
I find rather curious that this many conservative Americans use the elected representative angle here.
What happened to the ‘tyranny of the majority’?
How is it tyranny to say “If you want to send your money to abort children in foreign countries, go ahead. We just are not going to force your neighbor, who thinks it is murder, to send his.”?
We is all sobered up now. But your defense of the news article sounds disingenuous to me. What Bush did (and I strongly disagree with this tactic) was act to muzzle groups that want to inform foreign citizens about all aspects of birth control, including abortion. Their actual access to abortions is a matter of policy in their home countries. And while I suspect it may happen, Bush hasn’t yet launched a campaign to reverse Clinton policies (emphasis on the plural) on abortion. This is an editorial statement that does not belong in a news article. I happen to agree with the pro-abortion rights slant of the mainstream media. But it’s unprofessional.
Mild hijack complete. Over and out.
To those who think their tax dollars should never go to support any aspect of family planning that so much as mentions the word abortion, because it is so “divisive” and stands apart from all other highly controversial issues - Bunkum. There are plenty of people who feel just as passionately about other issues. The ‘antis’ have a little executive power now, so they are temporarily having their way.
I didn’t say it was my opinion.
I was just wondering how Bush’s action differs from the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that is supposed to be the bad thing in a democracy as opposed to Republic, ‘a nation of laws’.
I know I’m stereotyping a bit here, but I think it’s a valid question.
wring, I think you did misremember. I recall Bush saying that as President, and having some control over the FDA, he would order a review of the drug. Anyone with a cite to the debates could probably help out, but I believe Bush isn’t doing anything he said he wouldn’t.
-
Neither your neighbors nor your tax dollars are being spent on abortions.
-
The basic argument of “I don’t want my tax dollars spent on…” can always be countered with “well, I don’t want mine to be spent on …”. No one agrees with govermental spending 100%. No one.
-
The services being cut included giving information about abortion, birth control etc. It also included giving assistance with post operative antibiotics. If you don’t wish the US to assist with information and humanitarian services to other nations, that’s another topic altogether.