it conditioned the receipt of subsidies for other activities on the recipient agreeing to refrain from performing abortions abroad.

It is also said, I believe, that the recipient of the funds could not “actively promote” – not just perform but promote – abortions as a method of family planning.

So, mere advocacy of abortion as a method of family planning would prevent a organization from receiving funds.

I can’t see how that would be legal if it was US organizations here and funding.

Either Steinberg has some competence issues or honesty issues. There isn’t a third option.

I vote third option of both.

People who oppose illegal immigration should also oppose the Mexico City policy. High population growth rates in other countries push people into America.

thuja on January 27, 2009 at 4:41 PM

It’s not the population growth that’s driving immigration, it’s economics. Neither the U.S. or Mexico ranks in the top 100 countries by population density.

IOW, plenty of room in both countries, much more per capita $ in the U.S.

Assuming for argument’s sake that there is really some hidden clause of the Constitution that protects a right to abortion, this policy would be analogous to a policy of subsidizing newspapers, but only if they support Democrats, and then rationalizing that the policy is OK because the government was under no obligation to subsidize the press at all. Which, of course, it wasn’t, but…

So it is therefore Our right to demand
Obama FUND and fully utilize CIA secret prisions
Hell it could boost the economy..

Morons..

The Mexico City Policy banned US funds for abortions and abortion counseling overseas

No, it banned funding for abortions and also funding for groups that promoted abortions.

Any international group that promoted abortion or counseled for abortions were not allowed to receive funds. Even if the funds were not going to be used for abortion counseling or promotion.

Again, I’m against all of this funding. Period.

You can try to obfuscate all you want but the question is why does the Obama administration want to fund foreign abortions and abortion counseling.

DeMint said: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas.

And Ed writes: Steinberg’s explanation attempts to evade responsibility by the Obama administration for their choice to fund abortions abroad

But the Helms Amendment is still in place, and that says that “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.”

So the revoking the Mexico City Policy didn’t mean that the US was funding foreign abortions, because that is still prohibited by the Helms Amendment.

Its all about the Group, instead of the Individual… and that is just what this guy seems to be doing as well.

Romeo13 on January 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM
And that sounds strangely like communist doctrine.

Johan Klaus on January 27, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Isn’t that a primary part of the overall debate/strugle? Collectivism VS Individualism?

Again, this is about abortion counseling, not the actual abortion or procedure.

Clearly, the government can say that no funds can be used for the procedure itself. The government isn’t required to fund every medical procedure. They can restrict what procedures will be funded or not funded.

But can the government say that if your organization/program discusses abortion, even with their own money, you will not receive funding?

it’s just that the US Government, per the Hyde Amendment, does not deign to fund your printing press

Yes, but this is not about US funds directly going to abortion counseling (e.g., the printing press).

This is whether the US government can tell recipients of funding that they must not provide abortion counsel. Period. Not just with US funds; but with their own.

In other words, can the US government tell US organizations that if you want funding, you can’t provide abortion counseling even if NO US funds are used in that counseling?

Remember, the Mexico City policy banned funding of groups that provided abortions or abortion counseling. This applied even if the money given was used for strictly and exclusively non-abortion related activities (condoms, birth control pills/devices).

Does that mean that a failure to subsidize gun purchases amounts to an infringement on our constitutional rights?

If the govt were going to ever subsidize something like this, I would vote for it.
You can NEVER have enough guns!

The specific topic at hand is whether the US government can tell US recipients of funding what type of speech they may engage in.

Again, this is not about performing abortions. It’s about telling patients about the procedure.

SteveMG on January 27, 2009 at 5:09 PM

The US can even prevent US recipients of funding that they cannot tell patients about the procedure. See Rust v. Sullivan (500 US 193 (1990)). You are always free to exercise your First Amendment Rights — it’s just that the US Government, per the Hyde Amendment, does not deign to fund your printing press. Note that this does not stop the States from replacing Federal funds within their jurisdictions — it stops Federal funding of both abortions and abortion counseling.

For crying out loud. Google “mexico city policy” and you will see that it bans fundin by the US or even private groups that provide abortions or abortion counseling overseas.

Geezus, did you read Ed’s post? Please, go back and read the post.

This is NOT about the Mexico City policy or funding of overseas groups.

This is whether the US government can tell US groups that they can’t provide abortion counseling (or other medical advice or information) if they want funding.

Here is the question:

The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

If applied to organizations in the US.

Not foreign organizations.

I give up. You’re not capable of discussing anything other than the Mexico City funding matter when the topic is about US organizations and not foreign ones.

If a foreign entity gets our money, it can’t perform abortions or provide counseling for abortions

They can discuss and perform medical procedures, just not abortions according to SCOTUS

.

When did the Court rule on this? When did the Court rule that abortion wasn’t a medical procedure?

The specific topic at hand is whether the US government can tell US recipients of funding what type of speech they may engage in.

Again, this is not about performing abortions. It’s about telling patients about the procedure.

Its all about the Group, instead of the Individual… and that is just what this guy seems to be doing as well.

Romeo13 on January 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM

And that sounds strangely like communist doctrine.

Steinberg’s opinion is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has already definitively decided the matter in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991. The court’s majority opinion concluded: “The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion.”

Subsidizing an activity or right is different that telling US citizens that their First Amendments rights are taken away if they want US funds.

Did you read my first post? This isn’t about performing abortions. It’s about discussing the procedure.

Can the US government tell the Red Cross that in order to receive funding they must tell their workers/personnel not to discuss – not perform – discuss abortion? Or any other medical procedure?

Let’s change the topic from abortion to kidney transplants. Abortion, after all, is a legal medical procedure.

Can the government tell US medical organizations – in effect, Americans – that if they want funding they can’t discuss kidney transplants with their patients.

Explain the Hyde amendment.

That forbids US federal taxpayer money from being used for abortions.