|
Welcome to GreatestJournal!  
Welcome!
Login
Create a Journal
Update Journal
Find People
Random
By Region
By Interest
Directory
Help & Support
FAQ
Have a question?
Site Map
 

 

 

 Username:   Password:    

jesurgislac ([info]jesurgislac) wrote,
@ 2007-09-08 09:40:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Next Entry
Some good news....
This was the first worst news I heard about George W. Bush: he reinstated the rule that Reagan first imposed and Clinton repealed: that a health clinic that accepts US aid cannot then support a woman's right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Not on an individual level ("We don't perform abortions, but there's a clinic at 4883 West Street that does") and not on a collective level ("If aborton is made illegal, it will mean more and more women will die.")

Now, over six years later, that gag rule has been repealed. Good. Even if Bush vetoes it because women have to die to keep his base happy, still: it's good to know that there are decent people in the US government, who don't think women dying because clinic workers are gagged by US government policy is something the US should support.

From the LATimes, via ThinkProgress, via Sideshow:
WASHINGTON -- -- Defying a White House veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate voted Thursday to overturn a long-standing ban on U.S. funding for overseas family planning groups that support abortion.

The vote was 53-41, short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto on an issue that has been contentious on Capitol Hill since President Reagan instituted the ban.

Even so, the vote was a sign of determination by Democrats to press for substantial changes in federal policies, even though they have only a narrow majority in the Senate.

The action came during consideration of the foreign operations bill for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

The Senate bill must be reconciled with a House measure, which does not include a provision to overturn the ban. But the House measure includes another provision that has also drawn a veto threat -- one that would permit family planning groups abroad to distribute U.S.- provided contraceptives.

Shortly before the Senate vote, the White House budget office warned that if Congress sent the president a measure that "weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion, he would veto the bill."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate of abortion rights, led the fight to overturn what she called the "global gag rule."

Under existing policy, no U.S. foreign aid can go to organizations that use their own money to support abortion, including counseling.

Repealing the policy, Boxer contended, "could significantly enhance the health and well-being of millions of women around the globe."

The president, she said, "speaks about how democracy should be the centerpiece of our foreign policy. . . . I ask you, what is democratic about gagging people? What is democratic about saying 'You have no right to free speech unless you agree with me'?"

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a leading abortion foe and a presidential candidate, warned his colleagues, "If this is in the bill, the bill will be vetoed."

Reagan imposed the ban, known as the Mexico City policy because it was announced at a conference there, and President George H.W. Bush extended it. President Clinton rescinded the policy, but the current President Bush reinstated it.

Seven Republicans joined 44 Democrats and the two independents in voting to reverse the Bush administration policy. One Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, joined 40 Republicans to vote no.


(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2007-09-17 22:05 (link)
Well, looks like Dr. Chainsaw and his assistant, Ms. Shredder, will get some more fresh meat to hack up in their abortion mills.

Isn't modern civilization wonderful?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jesurgislac
2007-09-18 12:51 (link)
I find it endlessly fascinating how the "pro-lifers" argue for a foreign policy that ensures the deaths of 70 thousand women each year, and injury and mutilation to millions more. Some of them are presumably inspired by their loathing for women, and rejoice anew with each report of death and suffering: others are mindlessly ignorant of the consequences of the policy they advocate.

Judging by the evil-minded aggression of your response, 64.12.116.69, I'd say you fall into the loathes-women camp.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-09-20 10:19 (link)
If abortion is so bloody important in the 3rd world, then why aren't people doing it as volunteer work, like lawyers taking on cases for the poor on a "Pro Bono" basis? Planned Parenthood isn't exactly a pauper organization, and all those pro-abortion lobby groups spending $Millions to Congress every year could chip in some loot to help as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]jesurgislac
2007-09-23 03:25 (link)
If abortion is so bloody important in the 3rd world

What a silly thing to say, "if". Abortion is bloody important in any country in the world where women live.

then why aren't people doing it as volunteer work, like lawyers taking on cases for the poor on a "Pro Bono" basis?

What do you mean, "why aren't people"? People do volunteer work in health clinics: is it possible you weren't aware of this? Or of the many medical charities that allow doctors and nurses to work in health clinics in the Third World, providing abortions along with other essential medical services? Perhaps you should go do a little research before making stupid comments?

Planned Parenthood isn't exactly a pauper organization

Planned Parenthood provides essential medical services at or below cost to millions of women in the US. Like other US charities, Planned Parenthood already does some work overseas with partner organizations in developing nations - a quick google found me one example, an Ohio PP clinic working in partnership with other health clinics in India. I recall other examples. People who care about women's health in the US are likely to care also about women's health in other countries (and conversely, as discussed in this post, people who don't care about women's health in the US are likely to see women's health organizations overseas as easy targets).

nd all those pro-abortion lobby groups spending $Millions to Congress every year nd all those pro-abortion lobby groups spending $Millions to Congress every year could chip in some loot to help as well.

It seems unlikely that the pro-abortion lobby groups - I assume you mean those who campaign to have "abstinence education" taught in schools and who want women in the US denied contraception, health care, and parenting support, since those are the campaigns that ensure more and more abortions in the US - would want to help women overseas obtain contraception, full health care, and parenting support.

It seems to be fairly consistent, in fact: the groups who want to support women in the US, want to support women overseas. The groups and individuals who attack women in the US, will be indifferent to or oppose women getting the health care they need anywhere.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


 

Terms of Service | Privacy | COPPA | DMCA
2003 - 2006 GreatestJournalTM and GJPix

gj202