Abortion Gag Rule - Strike #1 for Obama

Just a day after the March for Life in DC on the Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Obama has already decided to repeal the abortion funding rule to foreign countries like Mexico.



Interestingly the Time article title is, "Shhh. Obama Repeals the Abortion Gag Rule, Very Quietly"



My comments in colors below



On the day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, President Barack Obama repealed a Reagan-era policy that prohibited foreign nongovernmental family-planning groups from receiving U.S. funds if they provided abortions or even lobbied for abortion rights in their country. It is an action his abortion-rights supporters have waited eight years for and one they had encouraged him to waste no time taking.



But by first issuing a statement urging support for common-ground efforts to reduce abortion rates and then waiting to sign the Executive Order late on a Friday afternoon — a time traditionally reserved for the release of information an Administration would like to bury — Obama sent a clear signal that he wants to turn down the heat on an issue that has defined and divided American politics for more than three decades. (See pictures behind the scenes at the Inauguration.)



*There is no heat to turn down! Pro-lifers will not compromise life!

The Mexico City policy, as it is known, has been one of the most visible differences between the two major political parties on the issue of abortion, in part because incoming Presidents have taken action on it within days of entering the White House. Bill Clinton repealed the policy on Jan. 22, 1993, citing his concern that the ban prevented women and children from receiving health services. Eight years later, George W. Bush reinstated the policy on Jan. 22, 2001. "It is my conviction," Bush said, "that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." (View new fronts in the abortion battle.)


Bush's statement is one being echoed by supporters of the policy today. But in fact, since 1973, federal law has banned the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions in other countries. What the Mexico City policy did was take that prohibition several steps further. Under the policy, NGOs that applied for family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency on International Development (USAID) had to refrain from using any of their own funds to provide abortion (with exceptions for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother). The organizations also were not eligible if they lobbied to make or keep abortion legal in their own country or if they provided abortion referrals — a requirement that led many opponents of the policy to dub it a "global gag rule."



*First off NGO's work for the local government, so even if the US is not funding the government directly, the NGO's work still impacts the local citizens of that country! And EXCUSE ME, but lobbying is not a cheap thing to do! Why don't they spend the lobby funds on helping expecting mothers instead!


As a result of the policy — which is named for the city in which the Reagan Administration first announced it at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population — some groups, including Planned Parenthood organizations in Romania and Colombia, altered their activities in order to qualify and continued to receive funding. But at least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been affected, with all NGOs in those countries denied U.S. funding to help provide contraceptives and other much needed services.



*Why is the US getting involved anyway! Why don't we help BUILD their infrastructure instead of hand out contraceptives... that result in a dependence on the US and causes more disease and problems! Also, what does the author mean by "other much needed services" -- who said contraceptives were NEEDED.



Planned Parenthood* of Zambia, for example, has lost nearly a quarter of its funding and almost 40% of its staff because of the policy. The group still provides abortions*, but the activities that have been affected by the loss of that aid are more diverse: pre- and postnatal care, early child immunizations, malaria screenings and tests for cervical cancer*. The lack of funding for contraception in some African countries actually became such an obstacle to preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS that Bush exempted PEPFAR, his global AIDS initiative, from the Mexico City restrictions. Opponents of the policy also argue that it actually increases abortion rates because the rate of unintended pregnancy rises when access to contraception is limited.*


By choosing to take action on the Mexico City policy just two days into their first Administrations, both Clinton and Bush ended up igniting culture wars before they'd even had a chance to find their way around the office. Clinton entered the White House having tempered the skepticism of many pro-life voters with his insistence that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." But his decision to repeal the Mexico City ban as one of his first acts in office led many to wonder if the slogan was just empty words. With Bush, his reinstatement of the ban and accompanying explanation signaled from the get-go that "compassionate conservatism" was still very much conservative. (Read "McCain and Obama on Abortion.")



*Planned Parenthood is a US-based institution with international ARMS and lots of $$$$$

*Ever hear of shifting the budget to spend more on the other services that have been impacted...?? In comparing the cost of an abortion vs. others things like are likely less expensive.. handing out vitamins and giving immunization shots... I think they should be able to prioritize better...

*Citation for source required. This is a general unproven statement!


Obama sought to avoid creating such political theater by waiting to issue his repeal of the policy until the annual face-off between pro-life and pro-choice advocates on Jan. 22 was over and by doing it out of sight of the cameras***. He observed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by issuing a statement reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose but also appealing — as he did throughout the presidential campaign — for common-ground approaches to abortion policy: "We are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make." (Read "The Grass-Roots Abortion War.")



***How can such a man be trusted if he doesn't publicly state things? Just because he doesn't want a public outcry, doesn't mean it won't happen. ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS alone.


But the President who so carefully cultivates a postpartisan image will not be able to entirely avoid pressure from allies to demonstrate a concrete commitment to changing the cycle of whipsaw abortion policy that takes place whenever a new President occupies the White House. Already he has been lobbied by pro-life religious progressives who urged him to wait a few weeks before issuing the Executive Order. The progressive group Catholics United participated in Thursday's March for Life, carrying a banner that read "Congress Reduce Abortion Now." The shifting ground in the abortion debates means he has more allies willing to work with him on abortion-reduction strategies such as efforts to expand access to contraceptives and provide economic supports for pregnant women. But it also means he has more supporters who expect their pro-life views to be heard. They'll have to decide if what they saw today was a mixed message — or a step toward common ground.



*This isn't a compromise! This is a MIXED message that not only hurts our nation, but the entire WORLD!