Posted on 10/03/2010 7:56:12 PM PDT by Sun
Financially supported by Emily's List snip
Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. snip As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China.
[Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China."
(Excerpt) Read more at ontheissues.org ...
If you live in New York State vote against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Her opponent, Joe DioGuardi has been endorsed by the NY State Right-to-Life Committee.
'OTHER countries' means countries inhabited by black, brown or yellow people - people that she believes are inferior. So it is OK to exterminate them. And when she can get access to access to the treasury to indulge in her fantasies of racial cleansing, she will do it.
Actually I think she would like to exterminate as many humans as possible.
When Gillibrand was a congresswoman, she pretended to be “blue dog” on conservative issues in order to win her election in a rather conservative district, but one thing she would not budge on was ABORTION.
And more recently from Gillibrand’s website:
“Gillibrand, Maloney, Quinn, Gloria Steinem and Dozens of Women Leaders Join Together to Protest Anti-Choice Stupak Amendment in Health Reform Bill
GILLIBRAND: “Without Proper Coverage, These Women Will Be Forced to Return to Dangerous Back Alley Providers”
November 16, 2009
snip
http://gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=9233F91E-7D86-47B1-8F50-FD91E636C123
I think you are correct here, but it certainly easier to justify murderous policies to oneself when one believes the targets are inferior races. Thus the emphasis on killing in other countries.
And you are correct about eugenics. I wish more minorities would see that.
The most recent polls I looked at have DioGuardi at either 4 points behind or 1 point behind, and more importantly, MOMENTUM is on his side.
Here’s a snip:
“Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and former Congressman Republican Joe DioGuardi today finish effectively even, Gillibrand’s nominal 1-point lead being within the survey’s theoretical margin of sampling error. Gillibrand leads in the 5 boroughs of NYC, trails elsewhere.”
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ddf78dd6-bef1-44e3-af71-225f2d2da637
We CAN win this one pro-life conservatives, even in liberal NYS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.