BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS

BushWatch ^ | unk. | The Conservative Caucus

[Jethro Tull]

Hello davis:

Look, most thinking people agree Bush is lukewarm (at best) on the abortion question.

Here's my solution.

At the very next opportunity, vote him out of office.

What was good for his Daddy should be good for his kid, right?

[rdavis84]

I believe he WILL be voted out of office. The intent of diseminating information is to expose the hypocracy of both Parties, and is a small effort at bringing pressure to bear on the incumbent administration.

I don't choose to live in 4 year blocks of time without activity.

[Brownie74]

Bump for later.

[ncdave4life]

Why do you guys bother arguing with _Jim?
I think he's just a liberal troller, trying to roil the water.
Nobody REALLY believes that the Masons and the YAF are hooked up with the Birchers.

-Dave

[ncdave4life]

article says:

ABORTION FUNDING OK IF NOT "A METHOD OF FAMILY PLANNING"

That is untrue. The bill flatly prohibits spending any of the appropriated money on abortions. Period. It says:

"none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion: Provided further, That in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects..."

The bill probably WOULD have permitted using the funds to pay for abortions (the Senate version did!) were it not for President Bush's veto threat.

The bill he signed is far from ideal, but it DOES prohibit using the funds to pay for abortions, and it would be a lot worse were it not his efforts. Note that he does not have a "line item veto," and he really needed some of the other items in that bill, so his leverage was limited. He did all that it was possible for him to do to make the bill more pro-life.

-Dave

[ncdave4life]

Well, except for "medically necessary" abortions. That's the only kind of abortion that is not for "family planning."

-Dave

[rdavis84]

I believe the major hole in funding like this is that there is really no means of monitoring actual spending in other Nations.

[ncdave4life]

You're probably right. In fact, that's a problem with almost all foreign aid.

[ncdave4life]

Jethro Tull wrote:

Look, most thinking people agree Bush is lukewarm (at best) on the abortion question.

Rediculous. Bush is at least the most pro-life President since Ike, and maybe since Hoover. He enjoys the strong support of many pro-life organizations and individual pro-life activists, including me. We realize that he has consistently done whatever has been in his power to defend the babies.

Before he took office, in my sweetest dreams I would never have dared hope that a president would actually use the occasion of his first major policy address to deliver a seminar to the nation on the sactity of human life. Bush Sr. never did that. Even President Reagan, whom I love, never did that. But GWB did!

And the effect his address had was remarkable! He singlehandedly derailed a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut for the use of tax money to subsidize the destruction of human embryos for research purposes, and even the creation of human embryos soley for the purpose of destroying them for research. Even Henry Hyde was "on board" that train, until President Bush derailed it.

-Dave

[mancini]

. . . that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion. . . .

But who's to say they won't divert the funds to a clinic that WILL perform the abortion? (Haven't read all the replies, so I don't know if this was addressed by sinkspur and _Jim yet.)