Well, they are, now.
The so-called "Mexico City Law" which has been in place to prevent this was repealed by President Obama on his third day in office. This ruling was originally established by President Ronald Reagan and remained in effect throughout his presidency and that of President George H. W. Bush. It remained effective until it was overturned by President Bill Clinton in 1993. In 2001, George W. Bush put the law back into effect, saying, "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." As a fan of smaller government (and not murdering babies) I completely agree.
I'll be setting up my taxes, soon, and I will do so with the dark knowledge that some of the money I work for is going to other countries to fund pro-abortion groups.
This may be a good time to write your Senator and Congress person.
Source.
Source.
5 comments:
Not really though, or at least not as directly as your title for this post suggests, if I understand all I've read thus far.
From the Time article you cited:
"Bush's statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries. What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own country or if they provided abortion referrals — a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a 'global gag rule.'"
Quite right, as usual, Renea, and I considered fleshing this out in the blog entry but I didn't for the sake of brevity (this may have been a mistake as it could mislead someone). Obviously, they are not providing abortions, but they will be able to encourage them for individuals.
My outrage is that we are spending money on this, when it seems like something we should let these countries do on their own while we fix our domestic problems.
Good post Adam and as usual I echo your remarks. We've given up Biblical authority in this country and this mess is part of the judgements. We are being handed over to sinful passions. (Romans 1)
This angered me as well, at first. Even if it's NOT directly funding abortions, it does worry me that our money is being used to at the least encourage abortions.
It's tough to argue on abortion these days since it's become such a moral issue (even though I don't think it should be... any more than 1st degree murder.) However, other than a few ambiguous laws like this one, the ultra conservative Bush administration did very little if anything to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obama DID vow to DECREASE the number of abortions, which is about all I think we can realistically ask for from the government at this point.
In an interview with the Burnside Writer's Blog, Christian author Donald Miller offered some reasons as to why he supported Obama in last year's campaign (I agree with these):
"On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions. John McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion. I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party. I also see this as progress. I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. It seems insincere.
But let me add this: I do wish Obama were pro-life. His plan to reduce the rate of abortion is a great step for the party, but I also wish he would defend the unborn to a greater degree."
Source
Now, I pray Mr. Obama actually fulfills his promise to decrease abortions. This policy, however, seems counter productive.
Sorry for the long comment, Adam. ; )
He'd do well to defend infants born alive.
Post a Comment