T Nation

Your Tax Dollars for Abortion

WASHINGTON (Reuters) ? President Barack Obama on Friday will lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush, an administration official said.

“It will be today. He’s going to make an executive order (lifting the global gag rule),” the official said.

The Democratic president’s decision is a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other in recent years.

When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counseling in other countries even if the funds for those activities come from non-U.S. government sources."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090123/pl_nm/us_obama_abortion_1

Your tax dollars are at work, funding abortions. It doesn’t matter if you agree with this or not. You are now forced to fund abortion, which many consider murder.

Thanks, Obama voters!!

He’s a scumbag.

While I don’t consider an unborn fetus a life and therefore cannot consider abortion immoral, I agree that it is immoral to take money from people to fund things they might consider immoral.

Regardless, I don’t think government should be in the abortion business. Didn’t China get into that business?

And this, more than anything else is why I hate this cocksucker.
He is more sympathetic to the terrorists at gitmo than he is to innocent babies.

For the record I don’t necessarily disagree with the gitmo decision, but I think he should have gone there first…Sorry for the quick hi-jack.

Putting aside the nature of these executive orders(which have been disgusting for sure but that is beside the point), the bigger concern in my mind is the unprecedented onslaught of executive orders.

Belies a complete disdain for “By the people…”

The most galling part about it is, not only is it our tax dollars for abortion, it’s our tax dollars for abortion FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER DAMN COUNTRIES.

Is it 2012 yet?

Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.

Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?

So now I have to pay so people can murder babies? ANGER RISING

[quote]orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.

Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?

[/quote]

No, why would I? I’m not a hippiecommiepeacenick.

[quote]doubleh wrote:
The most galling part about it is, not only is it our tax dollars for abortion, it’s our tax dollars for abortion FOR PEOPLE IN OTHER DAMN COUNTRIES.

Is it 2012 yet?[/quote]

True.

[quote]orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.

Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?

[/quote]

Last time I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. As in funding wars of aggression is retarded and so is funding foreign birth control.

[quote]orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.

Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?

[/quote]
No point in trying to use logic to make a valid argument here.

They are incapable of understanding sound ethical reasoning.

We are in enough financial trouble and should not be giving away any more money; especially for something that so many folks are ethically opposed to.

[quote]Deusomega wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.

Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?

Last time I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. As in funding wars of aggression is retarded and so is funding foreign birth control. [/quote]

Not foreign birth control, foreign murder.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Putting aside the nature of these executive orders(which have been disgusting for sure but that is beside the point), the bigger concern in my mind is the unprecedented onslaught of executive orders.

Belies a complete disdain for “By the people…”

[/quote]

Actually his executive orders are enacting some of his campaign promises. They got voted on already. I wish British politicians were so quick to keep their word.

Having said this I’m not sure if I’d have voted for the man. It was America’s decision and you guys made it.

The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.

So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.

Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.

[quote]lou21 wrote:
JD430 wrote:

Actually his executive orders are enacting some of his campaign promises. They got voted on already. I wish British politicians were so quick to keep their word.

Having said this I’m not sure if I’d have voted for the man. It was America’s decision and you guys made it.[/quote]

(nodding head ruefully)

[quote]pookie wrote:
The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.

So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.

Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.

[/quote]

And that makes it better how?

[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.

So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.

Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.

And that makes it better how? [/quote]

Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.

I agree with very little that my tax money goes towards, this included.

However, the pragmatist in me can’t help but to think, why shouldn’t abortion be completely legal all around? Won’t the people most likely to have abortions otherwise raise that child as a voter that would most likely disagree with my point of view? Wouldn’t it be possible for the far-lefters to abort themselves back into the minority?