Posted on 01/11/2002 6:31:43 AM PST by truthandlife
This bill gives 25 MILLION dollars to these sick killers. So even if you believe that this money won't go to directly fund abortion (HA!), nonetheless this is giving money to abortionists.
As for your statements about contraceptives, RU486 is not a contraceptive -- it is purely an abortifacient. This bill does nothing to prevent anyone from handing these out like candy.
The birth control pill on the other hand sometimes works as a contraceptive and sometimes as an abortifacient. That's not religion, that's a fact. This bill supplies money to provide birth control pills. Birth control pills sometimes work to prevent implantation of an already conceived embryo. This is an abortion too. This is also not religion, this is scientific fact.
And finally, almost every college campus in this country dispenses high-dosages of regular birth control pills to co-eds who want "emergency contraception." This too, is not really contraception, but is a chemical abortion. This bill does nothing to prevent birth control pills being used in this manner. Therefore this bill will pay for abortions.
Finally, let's look at the religious freedom aspect of all of this. I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that contraception is a mortal sin which will result in people going to hell. (I'm talking about true contraceptives here, like condoms.) Whether you agree with me or not, why should my tax dollars be used to fund a practice that is unconstitutional and morally repulsive to me?
No. I don't understand the need. I simply don't know enough about it. I don't know what our interest is, what the return on investment is expected to be, how we know if it's working, what alternatives there are, how it fits into any sort of long range goal, etc. Without knowing any of that, I can't even comment on aid for family planning as a matter of economic policy.
You need to have a serious conversation with yourself about why you find this frightening. And why putting a stop to it is a worthy policy for the United States.
Why? Because, with the help of the Pubbies, they've got a "veto-proof" majority or what?
It is interesting how often we see this excuse (i.e. some piece of pro-life legislation can't be passed because the Dems control the Senate.)
And yet, pro-death legislation (like the welfare for international baby-killer bill we are discussing here)has no problem zipping through the GOP House and the Dem Senate and being signed by a GOP President.
I really don't care if the Republicans pass a single piece of pro-life legislation in the next three years. It would be enough of an accomplishment if the GOP simply blocked every single piece of pro-death legislation from being passed. With the GOP House and a GOP President who claims to be pro-life, this could be done quite easily by vetoing any bill that gives tax dollars to an organization that performs abortions or refers women for abortions. (Forget about these stupid bills that can be circumvented by any night school accountant.)
Kicking the Culture of Death off of welfare and stripping it of at least a billion dollars of taxpayers' money would save far more lives than a meaningless ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Not only would it save far more lives, it would also significantly weaken the Abortion Industry so that additional pro-life legislation could be passed.
But sadly, I expect symbolism, and not substance, from these guys.
Yeah that's what he said. And what a self-serving pile of steaming dogcrap it is too.
What you've failed to notice is that he's got it exactly backward. We will never change the hearts and minds of the American people until we change the law to reflect that abortion will not be tolerated in a civil society. That's how we got here, in case you don't realize it -- up to 1973, the hearts and minds of the people were overwhelming anti-abortion. The law changed that, just like the 13th Amendment changed the hearts and minds of Americans in regard to slavery.
Putting all that aside though and accepting Bush's (false) premise, how does one go about "changing hearts and minds" without ever talking about it?
AMEN TO THAT.
I'm pro Bush and pro life and on the 22nd of this month, my wife and I will join a lot of other like minded people in DC for the March for Life but the attack on Bush here by the reactionaries is standard fare. Libertarians and "pro lifers" who want Bush to act unilaterally and some might say tyrannically make me laugh.
Family Planning is indeed a euphemism for abortion and in my mind should be defunded along with NPR and the Arts but I'm not interested in "stroke of the pen, law of the land" from Bush any more than I was Clinton.
Bush has been the most pro life President since Reagan and in my view even more than Reagan. It is my opinion that partial birth abortionists will be criminals by the time Bush's first term is over. That is where the current battle should be fought because we can win it. Then we move to the next line in the sand. Incrementalism is something the right needs to embrace, practice and beat the left over the head with.
If Bush wants to change hearts and minds, he should stop signing bills that give hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations dedicated to changing hearts and minds to the pro-death viewpoint. If Bush wants to stay on the sidelines, fine...that's what I expected from him. But he could at least stop funding the other team. Particularly since the other team spent millions in an effort to defeat him!
Bush has probably signed bills that will give close to a billion dollars to those in the Abortion Industry. Of this, he could have given $900 million back to the taxpayers and spent another $100 million on Public Service Announcments warning about the dangers of abortion.
Does anyone really believe this guy is committed to changing hearts and minds?
Boy, you folks and your qualifiers for every attempt to get more arguing points laid out for you!
Here's some truism ----- Folks feel that Bush Jr. LIES! Simple enough for you? You're the ones who are losing. I have stronger opinions about jr. than most others here but I've held off on most of them. Like the old saying that you bushbabies like to throw out frequently --- Get Over It! or Get Used to It! whatever. You can't alibi all of your boys lies anymore. Actions and Events are disrupting what you thought was gonna be a smooth ride on the Wagon.
Here are soem quick bullet points from Buchanan's upcoming book The Death of the West. For more details, see the full Drudge Report story.
• Between now and 2050, Asia, Africa, and Latin America will grow by three to four billion people -- 30 to 40 new Mexicos! -- as Europe will lose the equivalent of the entire population of Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
• By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.
• America’s “Dual Containment” policy in the Persian Gulf seems unsustainable. In less than 25 years, Iraq will have 42 million people and Iran 94 million people, more than any European nation except Russia.
• There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. today, and between 9 and 11 million illegal aliens, or as many undocumented aliens in the U.S. as there are people in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
• European-Americans are a minority in America’s most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.
I am EXTREMELY disappointed in the article, "Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History" by Jim Rudd. The article states "The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion-family planning activities throughout the world." I read the HR 2506, and in fact it clearly bans using the funds for abortion or coercing an abortion. The spin in this article is completely untrue. I don't like the extra spending in this bill for family planning or any other of the foreign uses, but I don't like being lied to either.
THE RESPONSE:
Wrong.
They use the money to do abortions to Terminate Pregnancies. Yet they cannot use the money if they call it "family planning", "lobby for or against abortion", or any program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization:" But if a woman walks in any hospital in any country that receives the U.S. Taxpayer funds and says she want to "terminate her pregnancy" then the U.S. picks up the tab - thanks to Mr. Bush.
It's Semantics.
Family Planning by any other name.
Jim Rudd
MY REPLY:
Jim:
Thanks for the reply, but I suggest you read the bill again. Here is some text from the actual bill:
"Provided further, That none of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this heading may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning"
and further...
"That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be used to pay for abortions"
So in your example, if a woman walks into some clinic, it would not be legal for them to use the US money for the abortion. Will it happen, maybe. But that is not what the money is "for" as you incorrectly stated in the article.
STILL WAITING..........
Folks feel that he (he's not a Jr., by the way) lies, and that is your example of truth? Wow.
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.