I understand the fact that George W. Bush is very religious. I and even relate to his being pro-life. But what I simply cannot comprehend the idea that he thinks he somehow has been given the right to control other women’s lives and choices.
What I am talking about specifically is George’s first official act as president - the reinstatement of the global gag rule. As a result of this action, any foreign country that recieves money from the US for family planning cannot discus or advise on abortion. The fact that he had the nerve to do this on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade just pisses me off even more. Despite what President Bush might want you to think, no US taxpayer dollars have funded abortions abroad since the seventies. All these clinics are doing is giving the women who come to them for help information about all their options.
I don’t mean to spark a heated pro-life, pro-choice debate on the morality of abortion. What I do want to bring up is what will most likely happen in the countries that can no longer provide information about and access to abortions. Many of the women that would have turned to abortion are women living in extreme poverty. They most likely already have several children, which the mother can barely support. Abortion for them is an all too real reality. If they cannot recieve an abortion in a clean, sanitary, regulated environment, where will they go? The streets, back alleys, and other similar dirty areas. These women most likely do not have easy access to birth control. Even if they do, it does not rank high on their list of priorities when there is no money to buy the food to feed their already starving babies. For them, feeding a hungry child must come before birth control.
What I also want to know is what happened to the whole system of checks and balances? How can Bush make such a huge decision without any input from Congress or the Judicial system?
Now I know that I’m mostly just rambling on, and probably not making a whole lot of sense. But I came to the pit for what it was made for - to rant. And I have. Thanx for listening.
I want someone to pay for all my personal needs to.
I’m tired of paying for rent, food and my car.
I’m really not willing to give you anything in return. I still want to say what I want, do what I want and treat you how I want. I deserve it. I really do.
Ummm…because that’s his job, and Congress has chosen not to pass a law that would overrule him?
But your last question there is a good one in a way. It is the one that most pro-lifers ask about Roe v. Wade. How could the courts make such a huge decision wihtout any input from Congress or the judicial system?
They just went and found a new right in the constitution.
I’m pro-life but they have a point. The decision made by Bush on this issue was within his perview according to the laws as passed by Congress. Congress could pass a law overruling him, but they won’t. And they didn’t went Reagan made the same decision.
When I’m giving a gift, I can attach any strings I want to that gift. For instance, I could give you a brand new car, but only if you agreed to stand on one foot and bark like a dog.
You don’t have to agree to my conditions. I don’t have to offer the gift.
Same thing here. We have no obligation to offer any funding for family planning. So, we are perfectly within our rights to only offer to fund family planning services that fit our requirements.
And Bush has the right to decide what those requirements are because congress has never statutarily directed the funding of overseas family planning funding.
You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but Bush has every right to do it.
How does cessation of the former result in the latter? Are women going to go to back-alley butchers because the US-sponsored clinic can no longer tell the the address of a local abortion clinic? Presumably a local abortion clinic, if one exists, has some means to make itself known to women and the community. If one doesn’t exist in an area, then Bush’s directive doesn’t really have much effect, since apparently a safe abortion wasn’t an option in the first place.
I admit that I didn’t do any research on the boards first before posting a new thread. I guess I was just so pissed that I just reacted without thinking first.
Lemur, I agree with you that the money we are giving is a gift. But it is a gift from the taxpayers. It is my money that is going to these people. Bush should not be the only person that has a say in where I want my money to go.
Why hasn’t Congress passed a law that restricts Bush’s power in this area? I would guess it is for one of 2 reasons…
There are too many pro-life people in Congress that support Bush’s policy, that would be opposed to such legislation.
The Houses are so split on party lines that most, if not all, Republicans would automatically side with Bush, a fellow Republican, out of duty rather than what is right.
Someday I’ll get over being surprised at people being surprised that people who actively seek out political power tend to desire control over others. But, I am just reminded, not yet this day.
Two profoundly dangerous misconceptions about politicians:
1: Most of them are basically stupid.
2: Most of them basically “mean well”.
(Although with #1, I’m pretty sure it’s not a misconception in Li’l Shrub’s case.)
I hear the Bush the Younger has a amulet around his neck that he cannot take off. Whenever there is a decision to make, he looks at the amulet and asks it what to do. It’s advice appears in ghostly form, like a magic 8-ball. Each time its answer is the same, a slight variation on a popular saying in the country.
Eh, probably not. IIRC, Dems were in control of Congress when Reagan did the same thing Bush is doing. To mind mind, it is probably one of these two reasons:
The funds come some executive branch pool of funds that would be attached in any budget to a larger office than Congress just normally appropraites money for.
No, it is not a gift from the taxpayers. It is the United States government, taking your tax money and appropriating it as they see fit. Again, as noted, they can put whatever strings they want on it.
It was also my money that was going to counsel women on abortion, Star Light Star Bright, and I am a pro-life woman. I received no say in the matter, either. That’s the thing–about half of this country is pretty firmly pro-choice, and half is pretty firmly pro-life.
However, Star, you do have options. NARAL or Planned Parenthood would be thrilled to have your private contribution. As appalled as I am about abortion, I still defend to the death your free speech rights to give money to whomever you wish. That money would also be without strings, and they could use it abroad to counsel women on abortion. I simply agree with Bush on this one (and it’s one of the few things I do agree with him on) that public money should not be used for this purpose.
I find this very interesting. It’s the exact opposite of the argument the liberals used to condemn Bush’s decision to allow faith-based charities to appply for federal funds. While those federal funds aren’t allowed to be spent directly for proselytizing, liberals made the case that charities receiving federal funds could simply redirect their spending to achieve the same effect. Now that Bush has decreed that U.S. money cannot fund foreign abortions, many liberals are crying that those tax dollars did nothing but provide counseling and education services; none of it was used to fund abortions. Did this federal money not also allow these clinics to redirect their spending in order to directly fund more abortions?
Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily approve of either of these Bush edicts, I’m merely illustrating an inconsistency in the prevailing liberal logic.
Pro-life attitudes are fine (well, not exactly fine, but not quite as critical) for North America where we are living in the lap of luxury compared to the rest of the world. For the other 90% of the world, pro-life attitudes are a luxury that not everybody can afford. If pro-life means no abortion so that each fetus is born and allowed to live their normal life span, it becomes pro-suffering and early, painful death for a lot of those babies.
Which is worse, killing a fetus, or forcing a mother to give birth to a child that she may have had no choice in conceiving; that she doesn’t want, can’t support, and will likely die a painful death before it sees its fifth birthday? Bush can be as pro-life as he wants to be, but when he starts imposing North American morality on countries that are as different from us as night and day (especially in the areas that family planning addresses), then his actions become very short-sighted and poorly considered. Is he going to back up his stand on not allowing US money to be used for discussion of abortion by making sure that every baby born in third world countries will not die of starvation, disease, or neglect?
Back to the OP, I don’t really understand myself how one man can make his personal opinions a law that will affect so many billions of people without anyone advising him on the repercussions of his actions. Or did they advise him, and everyone around him is as clueless as Bush?
Featherlou, thank you so much for your post. You so eloquently said exactly what I was trying to say in my op.
I do not agree with abortion in the sense that it is the murdering of innocent babies. But I also don’t agree with the idea that these unwanted babies would be better off living a life of misery and poverty.
This is a ridiculously stupid statement. Stupid, obtuse, dense, thick, sottish, stolid and Boeotian. Bush is in no way imposing his (I’m studiously ignoring the question of what “North American morality” is) beliefs on anyone with this order. All he’s done is cut off American funding for foreign abortion clinics, money, which according you hemorraging valentines, doesn’t actually pay for abortions anyway, only education and counseling. How does Bush’s decree, in any way, prevent citizens of foreign nations from having an abortion? Mr. Bush, of his own power, does not dictate the laws of any country, not even the flippin’ United States.
And one more time with the disclaimer; do not construe my statements to indicate approval of Bush’s policies, I’m merely poking holes in your logic. Or perhaps, highlighting the lack of it.
