[DittoJed2]

How can you still say that this article is misleading? The evidence is right in front of your nose.

You're right, the article IS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF OUR NOSES. I can say the article is misleading and an outright lie because the TEXT OF THE BILL IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSE. Read post 145. What people do breaking the law is not what is at issue here. What Bush signed is. He signed an anti-abortion bill and a bunch of freepin idiots on this thread want to clobber him as being pro-abortion because of it. If you do not wish to believe that this is what the law says then that is your problem. I refuse to argue with someone who insists the sky is yellow when it is blue.

[Aristophanes]

What people do breaking the law is not what is at issue here. What Bush signed is. He signed an anti-abortion bill and a bunch of freepin idiots on this thread want to clobber him as being pro-abortion because of it. If you do not wish to believe that this is what the law says then that is your problem. I refuse to argue with someone who insists the sky is yellow when it is blue.

Wrong as usual. It's the Bush bill that insists that we can give them huge sums of money and they can be trusted not to kill anymore, despite their record. These organizations have a track record of death. They do not deserve to be rewarded, regardless of why Bush wishes to do so. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, you don't give liquor and car keys to a teenaged boy and expect that your admonition to stay home and not get into trouble, is going to be listened to.

In other words, it is criminally negligent -- not to mention disingenous. Any idiot knows what's going to happen with this money -- even Dumb-ya.