Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Obama lifts Bush ban on cash for abortion groups

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 January 2009
BARACK Obama yesterday lifted restrictions on US government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counselling abroad, reversing a policy of his predecessor as president, George Bush.
The decision is a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.

When the ban was in place, no US government funding f
or family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offer abortion services or counselling in other countries.

It has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centrepiece social policies of the conservative administration of the Republican president Ronald Reagan.

Critics call it the "gag rule" because it also cuts funds to groups that advocate or lobby for the lifting of abortion restrictions, so they say it infringes on free speech. They also say it has reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office as president in January 1993, and his successor, George Bush, a Republican, reinstated it in 2001.

Anti-abortion activists criticised the move to lift the ban on funding.

But critics of the funding ban say the anti-abortion restrictions have resulted in huge drops for funding worldwide to organisations that provide family planning services. They say many women are deprived of contraception and other health services in poor countries, leading to back-alley abortions and deaths.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 January 2009 10:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Barack Obama , Abortion
 
1

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 00:07:16
Good decision. Another victory for liberalism.
2

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 00:22:37
The liberal battle cry - live and let live - but only if you make it out of the womb.
3

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 00:25:00
#3 Sure. That's it. There isn't enough space on this planet for every one to go breeding like crazy. We need birth control of one kind or another.
4

Chubby Broadside,

Slimming Down 24/01/2009 00:39:06
The world definitely needs some birth control regulations put in place otherwise we'll all suffocate in a sea of flesh.
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/01/2009 01:02:10

SouthernGent ~2,

One could say,"better to not of have, made it into the womb, in the first place"!


6

First Virginian,

USA 24/01/2009 01:06:47
Which article of the US Constitution allows the executive branch to use US taxpayers' money to give to other countries to abort those countries' unborn babies?

President Obama just took an oath to "execute faithfully" the articles of the US Constitution.

President Obama is charged with spending US taxpayers' money to benefit US taxpayers...not the rest of the world.

It appears that President Obama has failed to uphold his sworn oath to defend, preserve and protect the US Constitution after only 3 days.





7

Chubby Broadside,

Slimming Down 24/01/2009 01:14:43
#6 First Virginian
Yeah let's just sit back and allow the world to multiply it's nuclear weapons and population to a point where we can't move and can't breathe due to pollution, where we have no food to eat, no clothes to wear, no water to drink, no jobs to earn money to live and we can watch violence and wars soar across the planet. That's such a great idea Virginian. You are a true genius sir.
8

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 01:37:48
There is an alternative, its called birth control. Abortion is a definition to make liberals feel good about what they are ultimately doing. The most innocent of life forms done in by a definition. How ironic.

Keeping ones legs together is another option, but only responsible people seem to understand how that works.
9

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 01:42:45
#3
"There isn't enough space on this planet for every one to go breeding like crazy. We need birth control of one kind or another."

So why not those over 70 instead??? 60??? 20??? Teenagers are always a problem, how bout them?? How about the handicapped??

I guess because unborn babies can't argue or lobby their fate.

The arrogance of your comment is astonding.
10

2dogs in D.C.,

24/01/2009 01:48:27
What about that new med? What's it called? Plan B? Something like that,that would probably be much cheaper. People are going to "do it" no matter what,always have,always will.Except for my taxes,being a card carrying guy,and as such not subject to pregnancy,I've really no dog in this race.
11

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 02:19:00
10
Thats taking the easy way out.

I'm by no means a religious nut, but doesn't the decision start with opening ones legs? After that its just an excuse.
12

Carolyn 1,

24/01/2009 02:22:20
There was a whole lot of media outrage over Sarah Palin being pro-life, but no coverage that she supported birth control. She also supported rape kits; the rape kits in Alaska have the morning after pill.

I think maybe that's what you're thinking is Plan B?

The problem is, for a girl, or woman, who made a mistake the night before, can't walk into the local drug store and pick up a dose of these pills, she still has to get the prescription.
And so she never takes the pill because she doesn't have the means to get the prescription....

Sure would be much SAFER and cheaper than abortions.
Good point 2 dogs
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/01/2009 02:23:10

It appears that one is Totaly, 'Out-Of-Touch', judging by some of the commemts on this thread!

Let your Uncle Charles, give you some reality!

The World Population is going down, this has become a major problem in the developed west,

People are simply!, not having enough "Babies" to keep our economics stable!, more old folk, and no-one, to look after them etc!

Major Fertility Problems etc, affecting in the UK, one on six couples, now!

So! Please do not, 'Blow you Trumpet' until you have the facts straight!!


14

2dogs in D.C.,

24/01/2009 02:49:01
#11-S.Gent-Never thought you were a "Nut",religious or otherwise, but honestly,think back to when you were 17-18 yrs. old.What were you trying for (and dreaming about) most? If you were like most of us kids,it was how to uncross those legs. #12-Carolyn 1-Thank you.I try. #13-Charles-Hello again,hope all is well.I do enjoy reading your posts.However,I believe we are talking about what's called the 3rd world.It's a fact that the so called developed countries are seeing a drop in population.Me and Mrs.Dogs have done are part to contribute to zero pop.by having only one of each.(To replace us,that is-poor world;)).
15

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 02:56:00
'There was a whole lot of media outrage over Sarah Palin being pro-life'
Was there really so much outrage about her being 'pro-life'? Most of the 'outrage', if you can call it that, was about her being stupid as hell-oh and for being ambiguous about people who bomb abortion clinics: "I wouldn't call them terrorists".
16

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 03:03:05
14
Remember like it was yesterday, longggg yesterday. BUT, times have changed. Back then kids would actually get married and make a go of it, many still together. Today, its part of our disposable society. Nothing is made to last.

Education is the key. Actions have consequences.
17

2dogs in D.C.,

24/01/2009 03:23:46
#16-SouthernGent-Education is the key to almost everything,no doubt. But,as I said to Charles,I believe the issue is the "3rd" world.And as I understand it,hunger and war seem to trump education.
18

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 03:39:12
#16 Yeah times have changed, and maybe things have gotten worse, but things are a lot better in many ways too. Back then(?) you had segregation in the US, you had kids dying of polio. And maybe couples who hated each other stayed together when they could have been a lot happier in other relationships.
19

First Virginian,

USA 24/01/2009 04:12:11
#18 Newton_I_G

Quote:

"Back then(?) you had segregation in the US..."

Answer:

NIG, back then...before 1958 when desegregation took place, the worst problems in our Southern public schools were talking in class and chewing gum.

Funny, too, when they tried to desegregate the Chicago public schools it was the whites that rioted.

Suppose you think everything has improved in US schools now with drugs, knives, guns, sexual and physical assaults being so common place in schools in New York, Chicago and Philadelphia that armed guards and iron bars on windows and doors is the norm.

Then lets talk about our overflowing prisons and jails.

#89 W. Smith has the right idea of what to do with these Gitmo detainees...let 'em loose in a New York prison and let them fend for themselves.

I understand that gang-rape is part of most prison systems. Does that qualify as "torture" according to your definition?

Congratulations, you and others like you are bloomin' geniuses.
20

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 04:18:57
#19 You're not being very clear. Are you saying that the solution to these problems is to bring back segregation?
21

First Virginian,

USA 24/01/2009 04:38:16
#20 NIG

Just reporting the facts. Can't you read?

The only solution I offered was to send the Gitmo terrorists to a desegregated prison in New York where they would get the "welcome" they deserve.

You never answered if you think gang rape in prisons qualified as "torture."

22

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

24/01/2009 04:48:05
That's funny, you never answered my question as to whether you wanted segregation back or not. Probably because that's exactly what you do want but are afraid to admit it.
23

,

24/01/2009 06:24:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

St Caledonia,

24/01/2009 07:54:32
Some people try and bring religion into this debate and that is the problem - Forget religion, it will only infect.
Abortion is a personal choice and any woman should be able to do so if they please, as long at its within a time frame that is considered suitable by the medical world.
Religion needs to challenge abortion because its within their remit to do so. For them its all about THEIR mythical world of invisible dieties, rising from the dead prophets and virginal mothers - for the rest of us, its about the real world and the many complexities therein.
Well done Mr President
25

billengland,

24/01/2009 09:03:55
Abortion is murder.

By supporting abortion abroad, Obama is carrying on the USA tradition, murdering the rest of the world.
26

Selgovae,

24/01/2009 10:24:45
#6 "Which article of the US Constitution allows the executive branch to use US taxpayers' money to give to other countries to abort those countries' unborn babies?"

According to the article, there is no use of funds by the executive branch, just the lifting of restrictions on "US government funding". So I don't see how your question is relevant.
27

,

24/01/2009 12:20:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Carolyn 1,

24/01/2009 12:47:22
With this policy of Obama's, not only does the US fund deadly deeds of abortion and the doctors who do it, but they are decreasing non-American populations around the world, especially of the poverty and uneducated in third worlds; and it's being done with no outrage over that 'selection.'

A century from now these countries will be suing the US for methodically and with premeditation having killed them off in a conspiracy of superiority to control unwanted population.

Looking at statistics and the number of urban blacks who use abortion like birth control, that black Americans haven't already sued is only because a lawyer hasn't thought of how to do it.
29

,

24/01/2009 12:59:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

,

24/01/2009 13:20:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

billengland,

24/01/2009 15:02:06
30 famous 15, Edinburgh

Definition of Murder
To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being) willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully.
Websters Dictionary

Abortion is Murder.
32

,

24/01/2009 15:10:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

,

24/01/2009 15:10:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

,

24/01/2009 15:11:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

,

24/01/2009 15:12:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

,

24/01/2009 15:13:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

,

24/01/2009 15:16:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

,

24/01/2009 15:18:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

24/01/2009 15:20:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Fitzpark,

Durham 24/01/2009 16:13:03
Why are all these Americans debating on a Scotsman blog? Surely if they were interested in influencing this issue in their own country, they should spend their energy debating in an American forum? I've never understood why right wing Americans think a woman's decision, which should be left between her and her doctors is a suitable subject for interference by others. Isn't freedom supposed to be a big deal in America? Also I've never understood why those same folks are all in favour of executing prisoners. It makes no sense to me. However if there are still some Americans of that mind-set looking this page, maybe one of them could explain it to me. I'd prefer them not to start name-calling right away. Thanks from a puzzled Borderer
41

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 16:21:49
41 and 24
"personal choice" and "a woman's decision" - how convienent.

There happen to be 2 people involved, yet you totally discount the rights of one of them.

For 24, personal choice should also apply to the person on the inside as well as the one on the outside.

For 41, I guess those on the inside should not have the freedom you speak of either. The women had her choice when she had sex, when does the baby get its choice.
42

Fitzpark,

Durham 24/01/2009 16:36:42
#42

This isn't good enough sir. My question is, why are you, an American, debating this on the pages of the Scotsman, an Edinburgh newspaper? And, as an American, whom I presume believes in individual freedom, why do you wish to debate a decision that isn't yours? These are simple questions. Regarding the separate questions of whether to have sex (a basic need for all humans) and whether to terminate a pregnancy a fetus isn't in a position to choose, so your comment is redundant. I'm hoping for a civil response.
43

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 17:06:55
Fair enough:

"why are you, an American, debating this on the pages of the Scotsman, an Edinburgh newspaper?"

Because it happens to also be the international section of a www publication, frequented by individuals from all over the globe. It has been released to "the world". Now if it was intRAnet, totally different story.

"whom I presume believes in individual freedom, why do you wish to debate a decision that isn't yours?"

Maybe because I do believe in individual freedom and the one being killed isn't capable of debate. Which means it needs to be done on their behalf.

"a fetus isn't in a position to choose"

Exactly. So the moral question becomes "how do we protect the rights of the MOST innocent of all life forms". Correct me if I am wrong, but your solution seems to be "we don't".
44

Fitzpark,

Durham 24/01/2009 17:25:56
I think I understand you, but please don't let me put words into your mouth (or onto your keyboard). You express a belief in protecting innocent life forms, by which I assume you mean human fetuses and not the multitudes of other "innocent" life forms which inhabit this planet and possibly many others. Personally, I would always favour an established human being over a potential human being. Nature herself produces many more human abortions than human intervention does. It is, I assume, human intervention you object to, and you feel that you have an obligation to object on behalf of the fetus. I was raised to believe that no unwanted child should be brought into the world, so my opinion differs on this point. Well thank you sir for sharing your thoughts with a humble Scot.
45

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 17:50:17
45
"Personally, I would always favour an established human being over a potential human being"

Definitions are always the difference. I would classify a "potential human" as the egg. Once fertilized, it becomes "established". Depends on where you draw the line.

"Nature herself produces many more human abortions than human intervention does"

And I have no problem with that. Nature certainly knows more than I do.

"I was raised to believe that no unwanted child should be brought into the world, "

Read the latest stories about people in Arkansas dropping off unwanted teenagers because of a loophole in the law. The law was meant to provide relief for unwanted babies, yet no age limit was specified. "Unwanted" is a slippery slope, and can apply to many age groups, including seniors.

Again, depends on where you draw the line. And right now, the line is being drawn after life is formed vs before. That makes no sense to me. Sounds like a legal precedent to take anyones life if you think about it.
46

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 17:55:12
In 46, it should be Nebraska, not Arkansas.

Read the Nebraska Safe Haven Law. Very slippery slope.
47

billengland,

24/01/2009 18:29:59
@Fitzpark

Unwanted child?

So this is all about the parents then; whether or not they are going to accept their responsibilities to care for a child they have made.

Never mind the wants of the parents, how about the needs of the child?

Or do you condone murder as the easy way out

48

Fitzpark,

Durham 24/01/2009 18:51:08
Gosh, I've got a Southern gentleman and an Englishman debating me now. A tough position for a humble Scotsman. Neither of you have read my post. I wrote that I was raised to believe that no unwanted child should be brought into the world; and I do believe this. Once a child or an adult is in this world, for me there is no debate. Each one should be cherished and loved. I include in this heinous criminals, who some think should be executed. I'm greatful to Mr. Obama for changing a ruling that discriminated against many admirable organizations outside the United States. Please read posts carefully before you reply, then we can debate things that we disagree about. Please bear in mind that when you debate a Scotsman, you are debating a member of the best-educated culture in the world. You need to be precise, accurate and respectful in this Scottish forum, or you will not be thought well of.
49

SouthernGent,

24/01/2009 19:07:12
I find it hard to be any clearer than to post your quotes and respond accordingly. We all have beliefs, its why we have them is the question.

Lets try again:

"I wrote that I was raised to believe that no unwanted child should be brought into the world; and I do believe this. Once a child or an adult is in this world, for me there is no debate. Each one should be cherished and loved. "

Ever thought that maybe what you were taught was wrong?

Is not being inside another person also "in this world"? Not trying to be funny, but if a baby was born, by your definition it then becomes part of this world and then there is no debate.

What if that same baby was stuffed back in the womb, no longer part of this world?? I don't see the difference, please explain.
50

Fitzpark,

Durham 25/01/2009 00:02:26
Just back from the pub and I notice that my Southern gentleman friend replied. Thank you sir. Yes, of course I questioned what I was taught as a child, but nothing I have learned through 60 summers and much education has changed my mind on this. No unwanted child should be brought into this world. Have you considered the limitations of your absolutist beliefs? A fetus goes through many changes during its life in the womb. I personally don't approve of termination after 3 months of gestation. After this it becomes technically more difficult and the gestational age at which a fetus can be sustained to term, reduces with each year that passes. I personally don't think an abortion should ever be performed on a viable fetus, however I realize that there is a debate about this. Do I know what I'm talking about? -- Yes. I've observed the procedure although I've never initiated it. I think my 3-month rule-of-thumb addresses your second point. However, an unborn fetus isn't yet a member of human society. It's just a delicious kicking thing in it's Mother's womb. Birth is a significant event.
51

SouthernGent,

25/01/2009 00:25:37
"Birth is a significant event."

Yes it is, but the actual event is never the same. Some are born much earlier than others, so the event itself should have no bearing. If it did, a baby born at 4 months has more rights than a baby born at 9, when in essence, both are the same at 4.

Only the arrogance of man allows for a definition to be made and a line to be drawn. Once the egg is no longer an egg is where the line needs to be, all else is nothing more than justified killing.
52

First Virginian,

USA 25/01/2009 00:37:15
#27 Selgovae

Quote:

"According to the article, there is no use of funds by the executive branch, just the lifting of restrictions on 'US government funding'. So I don't see how your question is relevant."

Answer:

The US Constitution states in Article I, Section 8:

"(1) The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..."

"(3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States and with the Indian Tribes."

The enumerated powers of Congress include paying the debts of and providing for the Defence and Welfare of the United States...not foreign nations.

US foreign aid to any foreign country is clearly unconstitutional.

Therefore, the executive order President Obama is signing to lift restrictions on US government funding of abortions for foreign nations is likewise illegal because it is unconstitutional.
53

Dunnie,

Canada 25/01/2009 02:03:55

A friend of mine said that he saw a couple the other day at the Unemploy office. They had 3 kids, all he said appeared under the age of 6.

The children looked somehwat neglected as their hair was unbrushed and their clothes soiled and dirty.

However, the parents, obviously could afford tattoos, body-piercings, cigarettes and individual I-pods.

Obviously, birth control a generation too late.

dsres kids who
54

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 26/01/2009 16:18:10
It'a a pity Barbara Bush didn't have a couple. The world would be a safer place.
55

First Virginian,

USA 26/01/2009 18:00:48
#55 Clamper,Edinburgh

Quote:

"It's a pity Barbara Bush didn't have a couple [of abortions]."

Answer:

President Obama should thank God that he was born before 1973 when Roe v. Wade made abortions legal.

Obama's radical feminist mother would have aborted Obama in a flash...problem solved!
56

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/01/2009 11:14:00
#56 What's 1973 got to do with it. Any mother who really wanted one would have got one legally or illegally, though obviously illegal abortions pose a risk to the mothers' health.
57

Mashimaro,

China 28/01/2009 09:09:31
Oh damn I go away and this story comes along...

#8 Southern Gent... You are an ass. Do you think people in African countries have access to birth control? They barely have access to clean water. Do you think they have the choice of "keeping their legs shut"? Have you seen the high incidence of rape and war that goes on in that place. Hundreds of thousands of women do not have a choice about sex. What world do you live in?
58

Mashimaro,

China 28/01/2009 09:11:22
#53 So all that money Bush poured into Africa to resolve the Aids crisis was also unconstitutional?
59

Mashimaro,

China 28/01/2009 09:12:37
#9 We in China take care of the handicapped before they are born. Those not taken care of then have a very harsh life otherwise.
That makes our nation stronger.
60

Mashimaro,

28/01/2009 09:17:29
#19 "W. Smith has the right idea of what to do with these Gitmo detainees...let 'em loose in a New York prison and let them fend for themselves.

I understand that gang-rape is part of most prison systems. Does that qualify as "torture" according to your definition?"

How about a trial first, eh? How about THAT! Once you prove them guilty do what you like with them. No one objects to you slaughtering a guilty murderer. It's keeping innocent folk locked up and torturing them that people have a problem with.
61

First Virginian,

USA 28/01/2009 23:58:32
#59 Mashimaro,China

Quote:

"So all that money Bush poured into Africa to resolve the Aids crisis was also unconstitutional?"

Answer:

Absolutely! American taxpayers' money is to be spent on the American taxpayers according to the Constitution.

All foreign aid is unconstitutional but started after WW II with the Marshall Plan dreamed up by three ex-OSS heads who turned the group into the CIA.

American taxpayers have just gotten used to the idea of the US government throwing our money away to bribe other countries to "like us" and the rest of the world has thought we were fools for doing so.

Now is the time to call a halt to ALL foreign aid and let the world take care of itself.

President Obama and Congress have forgotten entirely that they are Public Servants elected to conduct the business of We the People.

Unfortunately, President Obama and all of his administration are descended from recent immigrant parents who have no idea what American government is all about.

They are about to have a quick lesson in who are the servants and who are the masters in America.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.