Obama to sign EO authorizing aid money for abortions today
posted at 12:20 pm on January 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, abortion supporters expected Obama to issue an executive order reversing the Mexico City policy imposed by George Bush prohibiting American aid dollars for international abortions. Obama demurred, perhaps wishing to avoid the media scrutiny that would attend such a move on Roe’s anniversary. Instead, Obama will quietly sign the new EO today, away from the media spotlight:
President Barack Obama will sign an executive order later Friday ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortion, officials said.
It is a move certain to please liberals and other abortion-rights advocates, and the reversal was expected in the Democrat’s first week as president.
The so-called “Mexico City policy” has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since Repulican President Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. President Bill Clinton then ended the ban, but President George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
This isn’t exactly a Profile in Courage. Actions get taken on Friday afternoons when people want the media to ignore it. By noon, the broadcast networks have their evening news well planned, and Americans as a rule go out to socialize. It’s not called the graveyard of news cycles for nothing.
It seems significant that the first such Friday afternoon news cycle of the Obama administration gets used for authorizing American tax dollars for abortions abroad. We’re spending a trillion dollars that we don’t have now for an economic stimulus that will likely make the economy worse as we pull capital out of the markets. With the federal budget deficit exploding to three times its previous size, thanks to the bailout, why should Americans pay for abortions overseas?
At least the shame Obama appears to show in signing this dreadful act can give pro-life activists a little hope. Perhaps if Obama realizes that he has to bury this in a Friday-afternoon news cycle, the Freedom of Choice Act won’t get much attention later in this Congressional session.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Is HotAir still wishing President Obama “best of luck”?
The 1st 2 things Obama has done is work for the rights of terrorists and now abortion “funding”.
The conservative apologists here are still hoping he’ll “govern from the center”, Pathetic.
nottakingsides on January 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM
“Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. “President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning,” said Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International, an advocacy group.”
- Fox New Article
This kind of garbage really infuriates me. The pro-abortion types all pretend that it’s really about the “health” of the mother. After all, nokind of evil monster would want a woman to die due to a pregnancy or a botched illegal abortion. However, the agenda of the moron above is clearly more about population control rather than any concern for womens health. Somehow I don’t see them demanding that we stop using vaccines and antibiotics so that disease can control the population as it did in the past. That, of course, is preposterous. So lets slice and dice little babies, or dissolve them with chemicals, because it is much less preposterous. I assume the liberal agenda is if we get rid of all those nasty poor illiterate third-worlders then there will be more resources for the elite first-worlders who deserve it? Couldn’t be, that would be raaaaaacist
I have 3 children. I watched them all grow on ultrasounds and there is no way anyone who has ever done the same can agree that they are nothing more than globs of mucus being cleaned out. I am beyond livid that my family’s hard earned money is being used to pay for abortions that I am completely opposed to.
I think the fact that this is one of the first issues he decided to tackle while in office speaks volumes about Obama’s true character. Why not use the money to fund the failing schools in this country or to help care for the orphaned children of veterans or any multitude of other options that would have benefited children in this country. For that matter, why are we sending the money overseas for any reason given the rapidly declining economy in this country?
ExcessivelyDiverted on January 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Oh for crying out loud. Money is “fungible” and if you don’t know what that means, look it up. Believing that some money is “thier own (not from your tax dollar!) is so naive as to be absolutely laughable.
Fatal on January 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Pardon my typos, I was typing one-handed with a sleeping, non-aborted, 10 month old on my lap.
ExcessivelyDiverted on January 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
TEA PARTY February 1st
Rae on January 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Arrogant SOBama–
“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.
“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”
“President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
canditaylor68 on January 23, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Under George Bush, America spread democracy around the world. Under barry, America spreads abortion.
Do you think 4 years is enough time to salvage his legacy?
peacenprosperity on January 23, 2009 at 2:14 PM
*Speechless*
I can type this: Somebody in the WH please PLEASE check his head; darnit he must have a triple six…he rides a car called “The Beast”…hmmm wonder why.
I suggest that car renamed “Christine”. Might as well get a Rottie and name it “Cujo”. :roll:
No wonder at neocon sites they are already stating he is the AC…
Nothing is cuter than a newborn baby. Thousands of parents can’t have them. If you or your family and friends are going through the same situation and you’re willing to go through international adoption, pls. visit (the family’s website); http://eaci.com. Babies also want unconditional love; something this creep needs to know more about.
I am beyond mad. Thank GOD for bloggers, and spread the word!
ProudPalinFan on January 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I wonder if they would get the message if every American who opposes this type of travesty would stop paying their taxes.
Sterling Holobyte on January 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You are clearly an abortionist and a liar. Here’s why: If the patient requests an abortion from a clinic, the clinic can simply tell them that they don’t DO abortions. So how would that be a lie, you jerk? Typical Democrat tactics. The fact is that NO WOMEN NEED to have an abortion….abortion is NOT a medical treatment.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM
By not explicitly denying funding, we are implicitly stating that these specific organizations can use said money for the performance of an abortions, thus implicitly granting permission to use the money to perform abortions.
Read up on the policy, guy. The policy only restricts money for abortions that have a purpose of “family planning” (AKA dumb couple doesn’t want the baby after they committed the action of reproduction). By not making a restriction on people that lack the morals to not murder a baby, you’re giving them full right to murder the baby. I don’t care what they do in other countries, but I don’t want MY F***ING MONEY supplied to these people that even have a tiny potential to use it for something I find to be disgusting. Anyone that gets, or supplies an abortion is a monster, end of story.
I earned the money, where the hell is my right to choose where and what it goes to?
Stop trying to play it down, moron.
Obama and McCain, one in the same.
Obviously you haven’t been reading.
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Gee, another liberal douchebag lambasting Christianity, how original.
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Naw, that wouldn’t work. You know that any money this administration would divert to the schools would be earmarked solely for more “tolerance” and “diversity” training, not tradional academics.
Sterling Holobyte on January 23, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I also don’t want my tax dollars to be used for abstence education or any faith based activites or support in any manner for any church or church-school related activites.
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Sounds like some form of extreme religion or ideology.
Is there a name for it?
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Of course it would never go to traditional academics. Liberals can’t allow that! If the population were smart and independent enough, they’d never get voted into office.
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Then start being a real parent and monitor your damn kids so that they don’t suck off the tit of the working man, moron.
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM
The madness never ends with you, does it? Why WOULD a clinic that concerns itself with women’s health even WANT to recommend any service anywhere that KILLS a HUMAN LIFE and has been shown to be harmful no matter where it is performed as compared to carrying to term?
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I also don’t want my tax dollars to be used for abstence education or any faith based activites or support in any manner for any church or church-school related activites.
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Sounds like some form of extreme religion or ideology.
Is there a name for it?
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
–Yeah. Cheap. Especially since we give all sorts of tax breaks to churches anyways.
Then start being a real parent and monitor your damn kids so that they don’t suck off the tit of the working man, moron.
leetpriest on January 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM
–Sorry, but I have no idea how what you wrote connects to anything that I wrote. Please explain.
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 2:28 PM
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM,
There are many, many things that churches do for the good of the community and for free.
INC on January 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Let’s face it, anyone who works for a living is actually trading large pieces of their life (the time you spend at work)for money. The government now demands that you sacrifice large chunks of your life to them, in the form of taxes (and don’t kid yourselves, they will soon be demanding ever greater pieces of your lives).
Now, they even go beyond that and demand that you sacrifice your life so that they can take that life and use it to deny life to others! Every dollar that goes to Planned Parenthood, to other abortion providers, here and overseas, is a small piece of someone’s life being intentionally used to deny life to others. Where is the morality in that?
Fatal on January 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I couldn’t be more pleased that Obama is rescinding the Mexico City policy. It’s the only good thing I expecting from his presidency.
I went around yesterday telling people “Happy Roe v Wade Day” and only got positive reactions. I did make a little faux pas and told a woman seven months pregnant. I thought she was just fat. We ended up having a long conversation.
thuja on January 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Suck a donkey dong Obam bam.
dinkyjackson on January 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM
To all my pro-life Dem friends who bought into his BS about limiting abortions…
Suckers!!!
Buck Ofama!
hawkdriver on January 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
You are getting closer to understanding, grasshopper.
In the new world of Obama you, the working taxpayer, have all of the responsibility without having had any of the fun.
Be studious, grasshopper, and in four years you will see the Light.
Yoop on January 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM
For some reason I don’t believe that. Was that an honest response, or just an easy, seemingly all encompassing one? Just sayin’.
What other use of tax dollars affects you so strongly?..HEY!..how about sending your tax dollars to foreign countries for abortions? Does that rile you up too?
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 2:47 PM
How many abortions have you had, and what would their names have been?
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Hello? There are plenty of other laws restricting the use of funds for abortion-related stuff.
Big S on January 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Whatever optimism I may have been reaching for with this turd, just disappeared. We cant get rid of ilk soon enough.
Viper1 on January 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Typical display of a liberal’s classiness.
/sarc
conservative pilgrim on January 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Honestly, irrespective of your position on abortion, can anyone say that giving federal money away for abortions should be a top priority of the new administration when our banks are failing and people are losing their jobs?
Y-not on January 23, 2009 at 2:52 PM
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 1:17 PM,
There are many, many things that churches do for the good of the community and for FREE.
INC on January 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
–Operative word is FREE (i.e., no direct or indirect government or taxpayer support of any kind).
What other use of tax dollars affects you so strongly?..HEY!..how about sending your tax dollars to foreign countries for abortions? Does that rile you up too?
Itchee Dryback
–Our money, as I understand it, is not being used to pay for abortions in foreign countries anyways. See the Helms Amendment: No foreign assistance funds 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
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Sign Order to close terror prison so bad guys can blow up babies? CHECK
Overturn funding for international firms that fund scraping out babies? CHECK
Democrats…the party of DEATH
Black Adam on January 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The Democrat party is the party of death. These people have no soul.
Rose on January 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Republicans: Carpe Diem.
hell…
Carpe DNC
Carpe leftist!
Expose these clowns and grind them to powder.
Oh, excuse me–I forgot the GOP switched from an elephant to invertebrate in 2006. My bad.
Black Adam on January 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM
This dollar..that dollar, how is one to tell them apart.
But anyway, to one who is bothered by tax dollars being spent with no benefit for the ones who provided the dollars, does it bother you? It would seem like it would have to, if the basis is being a cheapskate.
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I support funding abortion, because it saves the federal government money. Why don’t you abortion opponents pay for the all the welfare and other expenses due to the Hyde Amendment?
thuja on January 23, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Now we’re paying the welfare benefits for people in foreign countries? Now I’m even more pissed!
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM
*Knock-knock* Is their anything upstairs in that hollow cranium of yours? Here’s some red hot news for you: We do not want our dollars used to pollute the health-care system with procedures that DO NOT PROMOTE HEALTH. Got it yet? Nope? Thought not.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 3:06 PM
More use of our tax money to slaughter the innocents:
From an article on the the March for Life 2009:
INC on January 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Well, itchee, do you think providing birth control and medical services in foreigh countries have no benefit? I would think it would.
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM
How do you like that, Democrats…
Abortions take precedence over any upcoming CHANGE.
That Obama is such a complex character to write! He’s like the Johnny Depp of politics!
How do liberals spin this at coctail parties?
Black Adam on January 23, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Here we go. Wisdom from “Ms. Roe v Wade”: Providing abortions overseas saves the Federal govenment money.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM
How did the subject get changed?
I was curious about the depth and sincerity of your claim of being motivated by being “cheap”. I was just looking for consistency because that is usually a good indicator.
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Where organizations help people with limited economic means plan pregnancies, they can provide a health benefit to the family.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 3:19 PM
In his first two acts he made the world safer for terrorists and more dangerous for the unborn.
TheBigOldDog on January 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM
How does funding abortions overseas save federal dollars?
Y-not on January 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Having an abortion is not planning a pregnancy. It is ending one.
It is not a health benefit. It is death. It can also have extremely detrimental effects on the mother’s health.
INC on January 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I was referring to the overall effort of helping families to determine how many children to have. There is a health benefit to the children if there are resources to provide for their well-being. In some questions nutrition might be limited.
Abortion ends a pregnancy, but the health organization may be operating in countries where, as in the U.S., it is legal.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Exactly. Abortion cannot be permitted to siphon precious health-care dollars from people with limited economic means.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM
To everyone wringing their hands over the cost of this travesty, shame on you. Money is your god.
This is not a game. The innocent blood of Abel cried out to God from the ground in Genesis 4; how much more so the innocent blood of over 44 million and counting? We joke on this site about “civilization ending” over relatively minor events. This Executive Order is further proof that American “civilization” has already ended; replaced by barbarism with just enough wealth and technological advancement to give the appearance of respectability.
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked…” (Gal. 6:7)
The Word of God is true.
Repent and believe the Gospel.
knangle on January 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Of course, an organization must be disqualified from calling itself a health-care facility if it includes abortion. Abortion does not promote health care. It kills. It is the antithesis of health care.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM
The pro-lifers had an easy 8 years complaining about Bush not outlawing all abortion. Now they get to see what happens when they are dumb enough to fall for the Democrats lies.
Speedwagon82 on January 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM
If you are making appeal from a strictly economic standpoint, raising a child will cost more than an abortion.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Most Americans disagree with that position. You’ll need to change hearts and minds before the law could follow.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
This is a real travesty. It’s also a criminal waste/use of our tax dollars.
4shoes on January 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Then the choice is up to them.
If they want funds for overall health care for all care needs..from a cut to cancer..then don’t provide abortion services if you want the over seas taxpayer to help fund actual health services.
You are pro choice aren’t you? That is just another choice.
Seems simple.
Guess it a moot point now.
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM
No sh!t, Sherlock. Tell us something we don’t already know.
Here’s something else we can plainly deduce: You won’t be interested in defending the innocent human life of the unborn. You’re too busy making excuses.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Wish places like Planned Parentlesshood would take statistics of patients’ political preference. I’m betting the majority of women/girls coming in for abortion are on the liberal side. My point is that what Obama is doing here is a self-defeating concept from a future voter standpoint. Maybe if we stopped calling it “Right to Life” and started calling it “Right to Vote”, that would get the attention of the Dems.
jediwebdude on January 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Thanks Catholic Obama voters. You all have the blood of each and every slaughtered child on your souls. Scum.
marklmail on January 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Is that claim based on polls?
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Well, that’s a start.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. Hypothetically of course. This is a little more like the sort of revolt in which I imagine our forefathers partaking.
You must be so proud. It certainly takes a lot of courage to reveal that you are a monster behind the anonymity of the internet. Congratulations.
pannw on January 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Not sure how you traverse the logic of a few blog comments conditioning tangible actions in the real world.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM
A lot depends on how the question is asked in polls. Outlawing all abortions from the point of conception usually polls a minority. Believing that a viable third trimester fetus deserves protection will poll a majority.
Though there is significant polarization on the positions, many Americans have misgivings about the far-side of either position.
The recent vote in South Dakota did surprise me on how pro choice it was.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I thought the first thing Hussein was going to sign day one in office was the Freedom of Choice Act. This is no better, but what happened to his promise on FOCA? Where’s the abortionists’ outcry?
Akzed on January 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Obama is supporting genocide with our tax dollars. Way to increase the “era of good feeling,” Steve.
onlineanalyst on January 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Not if you think of the child in terms of growing up to be a contributing member of society.
Ever stop to think what it would mean to Social Security in our country if, not all, but most, of the babies killed since Roe v. Wade had grown up to be working adults right now?
I think I’ve seen numbers of 45,000,000 to 50,000,000 since R v W. Not all would be adults, but that is a huge work force of citizens lost through the slaughter of innocents.
INC on January 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Please, let’s call it what it is. And I was surprised and devastated too.
pannw on January 23, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Interesting priorities: Make the first diplomatic call to the titular head of the PLO, Kill some Pakistani civilians, and get the abortion mill back to full speed.
Vashta.Nerada on January 23, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Putting aside the abortion debate for one minute, there is something else about this that really galls me. In times of economic prosperity, I have no problem with the US sending money overseas to help out the less fortunate (food, health, shelter, education, etc). We are no longer in a time of economic prosperity, rather quite the opposite. I’m sorry, but right now, our own country comes first. My tax money is better spent on Americans, including my own family. It’s going to take some time to get back on our feet again (I know the worst has yet to come), and until then, let us look inward.
After all, if we cannot reverse this slide into economic disaster, how will we be able to really help those overseas in the future? I don’t think this is nativist thinking, merely common sense. If I’m so busy tending to my neighbor’s house that I neglect my own, how does that benefit anybody? It’s not like we expect any of these countries to repay us.
Back to abortion – I obviously do not approve of sending federal money overseas to organizations that espouse abortion as part of their services. Even if the money does not pay for an abortion itself, it frees up other funds to pay for that abortion. It’s wrong, period. Nothing to do with religion (non-believer here), everything to do with murdering our own species in the womb.
Anna on January 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I agree that it is a large loss to the workforce and U.S. GDP. Also, agree that the aging population is a problem for social security and the broader economy. The measures are different, though, in a developed country like the U.S. than in a region or country that is extremely poor.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I agree. Thats why I asked about the claim. imo the polling process is specious at best. Its not only how the questions are worded, but the “extra” information that can be provided by the individual pollster. These are intangibles. The attitude and feeling of the one being polled also plays a part…the current news topics..the thought of answering one question one way may draw a parallel to a similar topic that the person feels the opposite about could change the answer depending on the conversation between the person and the questioner..etc, etc. Somehow, answering questions in private may produce in a more honest result.
I take polls with a huge grain of salt.
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I can’t find any meaning in this sentance, even with the context. Can you expand?
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM
For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my government.
Mallard T. Drake on January 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Translation: Nailed it, jay12.
Do you honestly think you’re fooling anyone? Besides yourself, that is.
jay12 on January 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:21 PM
He means that it’s demographically unfortunate that all those babies were slaughtered in the US because we could have used them to fix the entitlement problem we have coming. In the third world, they are poor and overpopulated anyway so more abortions mean less mouths to feed and more resources for everyone else.
theotherKate on January 23, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Why? To a Christian, funding abortion is funding the killing of an innocent life. What parallel are you trying to draw? Do you equate feeding the poor with murder? If so, you’re fully justified in objecting to funding those church activities. Do you think Christians kill the children who come to their Sunday school classes? Then you have a duty to take action.
hawksruleva on January 23, 2009 at 4:29 PM
The start-up investment of a child is high. In a rich economy like ours every family can afford to feed, educate, and provide medical care for all of their children–especially when government help is considered. In an impoverished country where there are fewer family and government resources they can’t provide the essentials for as many children per family.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Every family can afford to feed, educate, and provide medical care for all of their children, huh? You know what makes raising a family really hard though? When the government takes money that I earned, that could go toward my kid’s clothes and food, and sends it to a foreign country to kill their children. I gladly donate to make someone’s life better but killing their children for them is not that way.
theotherKate on January 23, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Now I’m really confused. I live in an overpopulated third world country with a huge entitlement problem on the horizon. What should I do? Kill the babies, or keep them?
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM
The last time Obama funded struggling schools they began teaching racism and perpetual victimization from William Ayers and friends. And they still failed miserably.
Really, you don’t want Obama funding schools. Or anything.
BKennedy on January 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM
If the government reduced foreign aid and cut the overall budget by 25% I’d be happy, but we are heading in the opposite direction, at least for 4 years.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Save some $$ and get a vasectomy.
Itchee Dryback on January 23, 2009 at 4:43 PM
A lot of Americans do. I’d doubt that it is common in countries with greater economic challenges.
It is something of a paradox that the richer countries become, the fewer children per couple they have.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Keep them. You can’t solve any problems by murdering your own children.
theotherKate on January 23, 2009 at 4:46 PM
So because some people in far-off third world countries (from your perspective, I’m here btw) can’t afford to feed all children they conceive, the US citizens who believe abortion is murder should actually be forced to pay to abort the extras?
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I’ve never done more than threaten murder, and they just laugh at me anyway.
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Why? To a Christian, funding abortion is funding the killing of an innocent life. What parallel are you trying to draw? Do you equate feeding the poor with murder? If so, you’re fully justified in objecting to funding those church activities. Do you think Christians kill the children who come to their Sunday school classes? Then you have a duty to take action.
hawksruleva
–I don’t think it’s up to the government to fund or financially support churches or related entities. I find it particularly strange that some Christians think that universal healthcare violates the Bible while at the same time apparently having no problem with the Government providing financial support to the churches.
jim m on January 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Is the money going to local family planning organizations in countries that have legalized abortion? The countries themselves could prevent the money going to fund abortion by outlawing it within their individual country.
Is the basis of the argument against the EO that Americans should not have to pay for the parts of the government they don’t like or that the government can’t spend money on programs that a significant minority disagree with?
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Is anyone keeping a list of the Obama campaign lies? AP?
Despite the contradictory promise for a massive abortion industry stimulus, he also frequently declared that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions, and make abortion “legal and rare”.
Anyone have a reasonable argument for how this order will reduce the number of abortions anywhere? Let’s hear it; I’ve got an open mind on this.
Jaibones on January 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Obortionam’s slogan… “Kill them all, we got the money now.”
RalphyBoy on January 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM
That is totally unfair Vashta! You forgot “close Gitmo and look for a place to release terrorists”. Shape up.
Jaibones on January 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM
The argument is essentially this: if people in a particular country want to pay taxes to fund abortion, that’s their despicable business. Let them fund it themselves.
Unless you can tie it directly to a national security issue, the US government has no business sending tax payer money abroad for any purpose anyway.
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I’d tend to agree with that, though would include aid that eventually benefited our domestic economy.
dedalus on January 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM
And I’d agree with that, on condition that the ROI was clearly demonstrable.
Now work for tax cuts so you can send your additional personal surplus to any charities you wish.
DarkCurrent on January 23, 2009 at 5:26 PM
LMAO!!!
ProudPalinFan on January 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM
That’s exactly what the Pope said of the Democrat Party.
ProudPalinFan on January 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »