Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?Because it doesn't. It flatly prohibits using the funds for abortions.
If you pass a law that funds ABC and prohibits XYZ, but someone breaks that law, steals the money intended for ABC, and uses it for XYZ, you can't then say that the law "funds XYZ."
According to this law, it is illegal for the UNFPA to accept U.S. money and also promote abortion.
They claim they don't promote abortion. I don't trust them, either. But I trust President Bush. And I'm an optimist. It is quite possible that, because of the discretion that Bush has over UNFPA funding, the UNFPA thieves might actually clean up their act, so that they can keep their funding. If they don't, Bush will almost certainly cut them off. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606557/posts.
BTW, IUDs, "emergency contraception," Depo-Provera, and other birth control methods that prevent implantation do, in my opinion, kill an unborn child, and I would ban them. However, they are not conventionally called "abortion." I'm just using the words in the English language as Webster defines them. It isn't my fault that they don't always mean what I think they should. So to those who would say that this bill funds abortion because it pays for IUDs, I would reply that, though they are right about the nature of the problem, the accusation is nevertheless false. IUDs are like abortions in that they also kill unborn human beings, but they are not "abortions."
-Dave
All well and good, but what about RU486 -- aka "the abortion pill"? You and I and whoever else can disagree on whether "emergency contraceptives" and the IUD are abortifacients, or "abortion by other means" -- but there's no hiding behind semantics when it comes to RU486, which is a drug with no other purpose than abortion. This bill does nothing to prevent the funding of RU486; thus this bill funds abortion.
As for your earlier argument, it fails to persuade me. What we have here is "plausible deniability" on the part of the Bush Administration. In effect, they're meeting a notorious hired killer in a dark alley, handing him a bundle of cash in a brown paper bag, and telling him "Now don't you kill anybody with *this* money, hear?" (Wink, wink.)
I stand by the article and by my guns. At best, the Bush Administration is a bunch of bungling, naive inept fools. At worst, they're complicit in murder.