• Ron Paul 2012
  • Committees of Safety
  • Recent Posts

  • Retake Congress!
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • RSS LewRockwell.com

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Ron Paul 2012
  • Pages

  • January 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec   Feb »
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • Meta

Abortion Bailout

This is messed up on so many levels (see comments):

Obama repeals abortion aid rule
LA Times, 1.24.09

“Stepping quickly into an abortion debate he largely avoided as a candidate, President Obama on Friday overturned a controversial ban on U.S. support to international aid groups that provide abortion services around the world…Obama also announced he would release federal funding for the United Nations Population Fund as soon as Congress makes it available, ensuring renewed U.S. support for the U.N. family planning agency.”

“…President Obama campaigned on finding ‘common ground’ on abortion policy. But his first presidential decision to roll back the common-sense Mexico City policy signals to American taxpayers that the abortion bailout has begun,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List.

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. There was nothing common-sensical about the Global Gag Rule, especially since 2005 when Bush ruled that it applied to agencies working to combat AIDs as well as to family planning clinics. US aid money hasn’t gone to fund abortions since 1974 – an anti-life decision, when about sixty thousand women die each year because they could not access safe/legal abortion – but banning health clinics and AIDs agencies from receiving funding if they directed women who needed an abortion to a doctor who could perform the abortion, ensured that clinics and anti-AIDS organisations could not function or could not get US funding… which often, in turn, ensured they couldn’t function. It was lethal, and stupid, and anyone who cares for women’s lives and women’s health is glad it’s gone.

  2. “It was lethal, and stupid, and anyone who cares for women’s lives and women’s health is glad it’s gone.”

    This is a pretty broad, knee-jerk type of statement that misses a very key point on this issue. Whether abortions are good or not, isn’t even the main issue (although I’ll address that too). The main issue is whether or not the U.S. taxpayer should be forced to help fund abortions internationally.

    The real question is this: if private groups and individuals don’t step up to provide funding for a particular international aid function–that is when you know they don’t really care–its not about hiding behind the appropriation of U.S. taxes.

    It makes me sick to my stomach to know that women suffer as a result of unsafe abortion practices and even those who would need an abortion (or any type of medical care for that matter) would not be able to afford it. I recognize that there are some cases (i.e rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother) when an abortion is necessary. But what about those women who will receive abortions who are just doing it selfishly or without it being necessary–do you care about those children’s lives that will be lost?

    The bottom line is that the government should be out of the international aid business–they’re terrible at it anyway. People should directly, in the private sector, through churches, charities, etc. take responsibility again for the welfare of their fellow brothers and sisters. There are many people who do this, probably less because many other people just naively assume the government will just take care of it for them and fix all the problems.

    This is just another example of a socialistic government philosophy that assumes the individual can’t govern himself and that the government’s superior virtue will enable them to make the right decisions for the rest of us and the world.

    Are we concerned about the thousands of innocent lives lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, etc. that have directly or indirectly resulted from our government actions and/or funding? This is a somewhat separate issue, but the underlying principle is the same. The world (and the U.S.) would be a much better place if our government would simply stop the majority of our international spending. This is not to say that individuals acting of their own accord shouldn’t step up and be involved in international aid–and they should. They would be able to act much more freely without the limits of government. It all requires individual responsibility and proper education. That is where we should be focusing our efforts and money–free and clear of the mandates from someone in Washington. We, as responsible members of the human family, can help the world and lift the burdens that many in the world face, including many people in our own nation. We can fix the major problems of the world. But it won’t be done through governments–there’s too much corruption. It will be done by concerned, unselfish individuals who make it happen, if it is to happen.

  3. The main issue is whether or not the U.S. taxpayer should be forced to help fund [women’s health care] internationally.

    Fixed that for you.

    I appreciate that you may feel the US taxpayer should be indifferent to the welfare of women round the world. But, actually, I think you’re running down US taxpayers: many of them are people of sufficient compassion to feel that the wealthiest country in the world should give a part of their wealth to help women in some of the poorest countries in the world.

    If you believe that government can’t help people, I suggest you go live in a country without government. Oh, and give up using the Internet: it’s a government project…

  4. I’m not sure that you got my points.

    Yes, it is a healthcare issue.

    Government has its role, this just isn’t it.

    The U.S. at one time was the wealthiest nation, now we’re the largest debtor nation in the world. That means the wealth we appear to have isn’t really ours, we’ve borrowed it and in some ways stole it from other countries. The effects of this reality will increasingly become more apparent.

    BTW, what country doesn’t have some form of government?

  5. Government has its role, this just isn’t it.

    I get that you think that. Most people, however, faced with the choice of having their taxes pay for health care or having to step over screaming, writhing terminal cancer victims who can no longer pay for chemotherapy or pain killers, most people opt for paying taxes. The US system of patchwork privatized profitable healthcare is the most expensive and least effective in the world, proving – though no other developed country in the world needs the proof! – that one of the proper roles of government is ensuring that everyone has the healthcare they need.

    what country doesn’t have some form of government?

    Most of Afghanistan no longer does – and didn’t have any at all from about 1988 to 1995. You could live outside Kabul, and you would be living in a land without government. If that appeals to you, go right ahead. Countries without government tend to be in a pretty appalling state, of course, but if you don’t like government, you’ll just have to live with that. Or die with it.

  6. Your first statement is a false ultimatum. There are other choices, as I’ve outlined.

    I support, and I like a representative republic form of government (like we’re supposed to have) where Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights are adhered to. Its ridiculous and illogical to assume that someone who doesn’t support international socialized healthcare funded by the American taxpayer (without their consent, without any vote) must therefore “not like government.”

    Even under the Taliban there was a form of rogue political control, so to clarify my previous point, regardless of where you are, there’s going to be some group or groups that will take control and dominate the society–call it government or whatever you want. Being one who abhors war and totalitarianism, and who loves freedom, I obviously wouldn’t want to live in that type of society.

  7. Its ridiculous and illogical to assume that someone who doesn’t support international socialized healthcare funded by the American taxpayer (without their consent, without any vote) must therefore “not like government.”

    Well, setting aside that I think you’re wrong about pretty much everything in this phrase “international socialized healthcare funded by the American taxpayer (without their consent, without any vote) ” I agree that I was unjust in characterizing you as a libertarian/anti-government person simply because you object to a small proportion of USaid going on healthcare overseas. I apologize for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: