And so it starts - Bush and abortion

Great Debates
61

Found a link to the transcripts: http://www.wpni.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/debatetext100300.htm#ru486

Question: “If elected, would you try to overturn the FDA’s approval?”

Answer: "I don’t think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America. And I’m worried that that pill will create more abortion, will cause more people to have abortions. (snip bunch of stuff that’s really not a response to the question) then finally "As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope–and I’m–I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this–who use this drug. "

Of course, as a rebuttle, Gore pointed out that the FDA had taken 12 years to approve the use. So, I don’t believe my characterization of his response was too far off the mark. He certainly did not say that he intended to ask the FDA to reconsider it’s approval.

And yadda yadda yadda, ‘asking for re-evaluation’ is not the same as preventing it - well, it certainly does have the effect of at least stalling the availability of the drug. And if he really believed that the FDA hadn’t been prudent (to borrow a phrase) in it’s approval, then that should have been his answer last October. Instead, he waffled nicely on the fence, so the pro life contingency could be happy and the pro choicers could say “he didn’t say he was going to prevent it…”, and within his first few official acts, he’s taken at least one step to at least delay the availability of a FDA approved drug.

62
  1. The tax dollars are spent either to provide abortions, encourage abortions, counsel about abortions, or otherwise encourage abortions. If they did not they would not be effected by the new law.
  2. Well, if you want to spend tax money on abortions. Become a candidate, proclaim your stance and see if you can get elected. That is what Bush did.
  3. If the service providers want to keep their funding they just have to stop promoting or providing abortions. That is their choice.
63
  1. The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest”
  2. Bush wants to cut over-seas budgeting (In places such as Africa) for any organization that might provide abortions.
  3. Such organizations actually work very hard on sexual education. This is very important, especially in Africa, where there is a huge AIDS epidemic.
  4. Also in Africa, women do not have the same rights women have in the U.S.A. In Africa, women are objects. They are owned and possesed by men.
  5. If #4 is correct, that means that women are being raped. Should those women be forced to carry the children of the men who raped them?
  6. Even if #5 is a non-issue, what happens to the men and woman who become infected with the HIV virus and other STDs because they simply didn’t know better

So, this decision basically has two results. One, it sentences hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people to death simply because there is nobody there to teach them about STDs, and reproductive health. Which is not surprising, because we all know how much Bush loves to kill people. Two, it shows the hypocrisy of conservatives everywhere. (See #1,4,5)

Or, I could be reading this all wrong. If so, I apologize, and request any more information that I am missing.

64

Lost in the debate here is an item buried in the 3rd paragraph of the story as reported by Gannett News Service in my local rag.

“Out of about 350 organizations that received U.S. money to promote family planning overseas during the Reagan and Bush administration, only two refused to accept the limitations”

65

Actually I think it’s pretty bent

**

Beats me. I’m pro-choice, as I stated earlier, and I don’t ever think abortion is ever “ok.” It may be necessary, it may be a woman’s choice, but I wouldn’t call it ok. At some point a fetus becomes a baby, you know. I would never categorize killing one as “ok.”

**

A reasonable enough assesment.

**

This has been said before. It has not been cited. Nor has it been cited that those funds would be automatically lost, and could not be redistributed to organizations that do this worthy work being involved in abortions.

**

Really? You do realize you are talking about an entire Continent here. I had not heard that the entire female population of Africa was being held hostage. Can you back up this rash generalization?

**

I guess that means you can’t.

**

Again I think you’ve misread. I don’t think anyone has said that a woman cannot have an abortion. Abortion rights are not at debate here. Funding is.

**

I guess this means that you’d pretty much figured this last part out.

**

I guess they are in big trouble. I would support the use of tax-dollars to help ensure that this happens as little as possible or to eradicate it. This has exactly what to do with funding abortions?

**

Yeah, you said that. You haven’t shown the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that it might be true though. In fact, it’s such a patent falsehood that I’m sure it’s disingenuous at worst, and empty rhetoric at best.

**

That’s quite the logical leap there, Pepper. What orifice did you pull that out of?

**

Really? Since 1,4,5 are pretty much bullshit, I’ll let this direct insult go.

**

I’d say so. It’s good of you to admit the possibility.

**

Accepted.

I hope I’ve done so.

66

I’ve hesitated jumping into this debate, because I’m not entirely happy about Bush’s decision.

Obviously, it makes sense to pro-choice individuals that abortion services are lumped in with other family planning services - counseling, education, contraception, prenatal care. And AIDS education. If I were a provider of family planning and reproductive health services, of course I would counsel my patients on all of their options. If I ran an NGO working to improve women’s health and access to family planning services, I would want to educate women about all of their options. This international gag rule asks these organizations to pretend that abortion does not exist as an option for their patients in order to receive continued U.S. funding. And I think that’s shortsighted or unrealistic - organizations like International Planned Parenthood do amazing work, and are an excellent and efficient outlet for our development dollars. But unrealistic does not signal the end of the world or mean that anyone’s “rights” are getting trampled, here OR abroad.

If wring’scite is correct, $15 million is a tiny drop in the bucket of international family planning aid. If all the wealthy people in this country who truly care about this issue got together, they could raise the money easily and make a point.

Honestly, if I were a pro-choice head of one of these organizations, at this point I would say “Fuck you, President Bush - and fuck your funding. You have NO IDEA of the realities of the work we do. But you’ve made your political point. So let’s move on. I’ll find other sources of funding. Thank you for your time.”

Second, there’s the issue of whether abortion-related services are paid for with U.S. government money or the organization’s “own” funding. Guess what. It’s moot. The organization could keep all the money separate: their “own” funds to pay for abortion-related services, U.S. funds to pay for other services. So how would the thank you note read? “Dear USA, thanks for the check. Your generous donation for service X, Y, and Z frees up more of “our” money for abortion related services.” How can this not be the case? It’s the same for any organization. When you give money to an organization, you publicly endorse its mission. Bush has decided that the U.S. government doesn’t want to endorse the mission of abortion service providers, and the argument about “separation of funds” doesn’t really make a difference. I think it’s small, and shortsighted, and unrealistic, and does more harm than good (actual harm to actual people, as opposed to political consequences), but hey, not enough people voted against the guy. Clinton’s 1993 decision angered a lot of people as much as this one angers people now.

Finally, this is all politics. Bush is too much of a coward to make big abortion waves here at home. He doesn’t have the mandate. So he keeps his supporters happy by making a very tiny budget cut so that he can say “I stopped that evil Bill Clinton’s plan to divert U.S. tax dollars to paying for abortions” without really having done anything all that big.

Finally, I’d encourage those who think the School of the Americas is a shiny, happy place to do a web search on “El Salvador” and “Civil War.” Also look up “dead priests.” I’ll happily start a new thread on the subject.

67

#1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The tax dollars are being spent on providing information (including birth control, and yes, that abortion is a legal alternative in the country they’re in), and other services such as post operative antibiotics. You’ve repeated your assertion that it’s providing abortions. I’ve provided a cite that says its not. What the executive order (not law) does is to disallow funding to any agency that in addition to these tax payer funded activities also provides abortion services. Kinda like saying that since McDonalds sells hamburgers, but also sells milkshakes, milkshakes are hamburgers.

  1. “if I want to spend tax $$” assumes facts not in evidence. No tax money was being spent on abortions. Information yes. Surgerical procedure no. You keep on asserting that providing information is the same as promoting and providing. it’s not.

  2. Since, in many of the areas we’re talking about, there may only be one clinic in available to an area. Which would mean that effectively, we’d be denying legal services to women of other countries, based on our current leader’s objection to their laws. So, either the clinic denies legal health care services, or they may face a large reduction in other services available. These funds go to real places, with real people’s lives in the balance.

But, since you keep on insisting that providing information is promoting an action, I guess that, too wouldn’t be a problem to you.

whatever.

68

Pick any abortion debate here in GD, and there will inevitably be more than one pro-lifer who states “The only time abortion should be allowed are in cases on incest and rape.”
In fact,according to yahoo! news

Well, according to CNN there are

Those are pretty large numbers. I think that can be considered an epidemic.

Perhaps it is a sweeping generalization, but it is not entirely false.
From Strategic Action Issue Area: African Women’s Rights

Women in Africa

Another example of how women are treated in Afica.

Also

Well, see, according to Yahoo! news Bush is “banning U.S. funding for
international family planning groups that support
abortion.” Do you believe that the only thing these international family planning groups do is perform abortions? No. This decision * “bans financial support for organizations if any of their funding, even if it
does not come from the United States, is spent on abortion. This means organizations that also provide other services, including family
planning, education and health facilities, in poor countries will be affected by
Bush’s action.”*
In other words, if organizations lose desperately needed funds from the US, they will not be allowed to continue to operate. If they cannot continue to operate, than they cannot continue to educate people about the AIDS epidemic, reproductive health, and other STDs.

Well, using Bush’s own words, I proved #1 to be true.
I have offered many cites that women are considered second-class citizens in Africa, so #4 is fairly accurate. So, #5 can be reasonably inferred.
If that’s the case, than Bush is a big hyprocrite. With this action, Bush is saying that abortion is never OK, and he doesn’t care who he hurts during the process.

69

Shit PLG do you just make up your perceptions of pro life posters to suit your purposes?

  1. I can’t seem to find all of these inevitable postings by pro life people on the SDMB arguing in favor of the rape/incest exceptions…Since you invited me to “pick any abortion debate here in GD” …listed below are the 2 most recent abortion threads…perhaps you could find all of these “statements” there?

  2. Even IF that was the case here on the SDMB, I don’t see how that and Bush’s staement adds up to "The majority of pro-lifers believe abortion is ok in cases of “rape and incest” (your phrasing, not mine)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=55236

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=53199

70

pepperlandgirl, c’mon! Using only one example you prove a point? And a point that states:

How does one example show a majority? Unless there are only two pro-lifers in the country maybe…

Also, you completely overlook many other points of her post. For instance, when you said,

you do not account or acknowledge the possibility that organizations could exist that provide all of those services, minus any abortion-related activities.

However, your info on Africa is right-on. I had several courses in college regarding that same thing, and there can’t be much argument against it.

71

Great posts Pepperlandgirl.

I am actually astounded at how effective Bush has been. I said several times when people pointed out to me how many times Clinton failed to get his poilicies accepted by congress that I’d rather have someone trying to do good things and failing than someone trying to do bad things and succeeding. IMO, Bush is succeeding at doing bad things. I didn’t expect him to be so successful so quickly.

I hope he has some projects that I approve of on his agenda. I am ambivalent to his education ideas (i.e. vouchers). They don’t sound like they’ll actually help more than a few borderline kids. If he can really make a positive difference for a large number of children, then that will be wonderful.

I expect he has more fundamentalist and conservative issues to push forward. I am thankful that I, personally, am moving slowly toward a financial status that will make me the recipient of Bush’s blessings.

72

Pepperlandgirl I suspect Scylla wasn’t questioning the fact that AIDS is a big problem in Africa, but wanted some proof that the action taken by Bush would some how prevent AIDS education.

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.

As my prior site pointed out, there’s really very little money involved in Mr. Bush’s action. That doesn’t make it moot, however.

As was noted, when this ban went into effect before under Reagan, some groups chose to go along with it to allow them to continue to offer other services. This, too, doesn’t make it right. Consider this:

There’s some 60 countries involved, mostly 3rd world, lots in a rural kind of setting. Take a look at rural vs. urban America. If the ABC Clinic in Mid town Manhatten doesn’t offer abortion services, folks may still get them from the XYZ clinic. However, in Otumwa Iowa, if the one health care provider doesn’t offer those services, the person wanting/needing the services may be unable to bear the burden etc. of traveling several hundred miles to obtain them.

Replicate that in a third world country that doesn’t necessarily have public transportation etc. So, the people who manage these clinics have a choice, have a significant funding decrease or reduce services to their population. And, since we’re talking about medical services that are legal in the host country, it seems that the action by Bush may be seen as A Bully

73

Which is really nice, except we are not discussing abortion rights, we are discussing the funding of abortion with public dollars. Nobody is arguing to make it illegal for a woman in Africa to have an abortion. We are simply saying that the U.S. isn’t going to pay for it if she does. The distinction between “illegal” and “not paid for by the government,” is a large and obvious one, and I would expect you to grasp it.

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.

Sorry Pepperlandgirl, but that has absolutely nothing to do with either the topic at hand ofr the issue that I requested a cite on.

For the third and last time:

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.

You cannot even reasonably demonstrate that such actions are hurting the fight against Aids, unless you can demonstrate that the funds that these dual organizations are deprived of is irrevocably lost, and cannot be redirected to Aids-only organizations.

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.

I’m glad you realize this. I for one would not not to suggest that civil riths violations for African women was not a significant problem.

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.

This has got to be the 10th time that that argument has been used in this thread, and it has been refuted at least that many times. Rather than come up with a new argument, or challenge the refutation, or even graciously suggest that the opposition might have a point, I see that instead you have chosen to recycle this same flawed piece of drivel again.

So for the 11th time:

Take your pick:

  1. Well then if those agencies would like to continue to receive American aid then they will have to choose whether or not they want to continue offering abortion services.

  2. You cannot argue that the funding of those other services has been damaged unless you can show that the money withheld from dual service (abortion and aids, for example) organizations is somehow irretrevably lost and cannot instead be funnelled to other to other organizations that offer those services without also offering abortions. Indeed, the opposite is true, as it is logical to expect that such action will result in more focussed U.S. Aid dollars. So far no one has posted the slightest shred of evidence to suggest the Bush’s ruling will not simply result in more focussed aid. You seem to assume that it will result in less aid, but based on the ruling itself there is no logical reason to think so.

Your premises are wrong and your conclusions do not follow your premises. In short, your argument is entirely without merit from start to finish.

{fixed coding. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 01-23-2001 at 04:34 PM]

74

Scylla for the upmteenth time,
** no.
US
Taxpayer
money
paid
for
abortions
in
foreign
countries.**
You also glossed over where you (and others) were wrong about the fact that most Americans are in favor of abortions being legal in the case of incest and rape.

As far as the contention that defunding the abortion information services would defund other services as well, none of us have access to the list of those providers and their budgets. I would submit to you that my analysis of the potential has merit. It is unlikely that in a small village in India that there would be more than one health provider of any sort. So, if the organization houses facilities to perform abortions, then, they would have to do without any funds from the USAID project, despite the fact that abortions are legal in India, and, as was noted in my prior cite on the subject that many of those abortions that do occur, are done w/o sanitary measures. So, reducing the number of legal, sanitary providers would help… how?

75

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.

76

Bullshit. Cite? Or are you making a distinction without meaning?

I din’t gloss it over. I ignored it. Why? Because I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did **I ** make a statement on this issue that was wrong?

Without evidence or at least a reason to suggest that it might be true, you don’t really have much of an argument there, do you?

It doesn’t.

That is all suppositon. Reducing the number of legal sanitary providers does not automatically follow as a consequence of reduced U.S. funding.

Pretending for a second that it does. So?

Does the lady in India care that the U.S. isn’t picking up the tab for my cigarettes, new car, nose job etc?

Do I feel guilty that the U.S. isn’t doing its best to make abortions easy and convenient in India?

{LEARN HOW TO USE BOLD, SCYLLA! I ain’t fixing it for you ever again in this thread. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 01-23-2001 at 04:56 PM]

77

I believe what Wring and pldennison are referring to is the Helms amendment to the 1973 Foreign Aid act

From http://www.usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0998/ijge/gj-14.htm
"Q: Are USAID funds used to perform or promote abortions overseas?

Since 1973, under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, USAID has been prohibited by law from using funds to support abortions as a method of family planning. Several procedures are used to ensure that the law is strictly followed. These include legally binding provisions within USAID contracts forbidding such activity, staff monitoring, and regular audits by nationally recognized accounting firms."

78

Gaudere:

Much thanks for your aid. This doesn’t seem to be my day for UBB code. :frowning:

Pldennison:

Funding organizations that fund abortions is funding abortions. That’s what I mean by a distinction without meaning.

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.

79

And yet, it’s what Bush’s new order requires.

80

Wow, Phil, we agree! :wink:

Scylla-no, try: extremist military schools, who fund death squads to go out and support fascist right-wing dictators in Latin America, who then go out and persecute the people.

Thank you, Magdalene. Also, you MIGHT want to read a book titled Murder in Central America, by Dr. Edward T. and Donna Brett. Dr. Brett is my advisor, the one who keeps me informed of this stuff. It’s out of print, but I’m sure you could find it.

Trust me, the School of the Americas is an abomination.

As far as people who are opposed to abortions having their tax dollars fund them-I’m opposed to school vouchers and having MY tax dollars fund religious schools, because that isn’t right. (Despite the fact that I attended Catholic school). What the hell?