Obama reverses abortion-funds policy
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday quietly ended the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option.
Liberal groups welcomed the decision, while abortion rights foes criticized the president.
Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Obama signed an executive order on the ban, without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. That was in contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week.
Obama's action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
Read the rest of the story here.
Me: What's with the Democrats? Why must Democratic Presidents think that they must uphold what is morally derelict? Why? Why? WHY????
Perhaps because it is not just about abortion. But primarily about contraception and attempting to help families stay out of poverty by avoiding having more children than they are capable of taking care of.
Something many of the judgers do not have to worry about because they have birth control available. Most Christian families do not have 8-20 kids and that is the reason why.
No offense intended, but that sounds like a rather looking-at-the-world-through-rose-colored-glasses answer.
When I worked at a local county health department, there were girls as young as 13 on the Pill and boys as young as 11 coming in for condoms.
I don't buy that it is "primarily about contraception". That just doesn't cut it with me.
Matt 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
There are many Christian families with 8-20 kids. Both the churches I've attended in the last twenty five years have had SEVERAL prolific families. That's not it.
Bothers me greatly, Rick. Sad. Sad, sad, sad . . .
Abstinence, morals, purity, dignity, the word "no", and a few other good traits (including allowing God's teachings) would help lesson the need to provide contraception for CHILDREN and those not ready to be parents. For those that are old enough but not responsible enough, there are other ways to deal with that than to take a life.
My heart is just BREAKING at this immoral world.
Yep, so it begins. Those with any moral fiber are in for a long 4 years (at least) because you and I both know there is more coming down the pike.
Not only are we funding abortions, but we are using American power and dollars to fund them overseas! It's not enough to be morally bankrupt here. We have to spread that mess across the globe.
When I taught school, I had a student get pregnant at 12 and knew of an abortion at 14.
If they had been able to get contraception that might have happened.
The U.S. does not control abortion policy in the rest of the world but we can help to reduce poverty and overpopulation by funding access to contraceptives.
And it just might mean fewer abortions.
With an all-or-none approach, you often get none. It just hasn't produced results. At least the Democrats have some perspective instead of keeping their heads stuck in the sand with an ideal world view.
Ya don't need contraception if you are waiting til AFTER marriage to have sex. Ya don't have sex, ya don't get pregnant.
Someone has to stand up and say sex is good and meant for the marriage bond. God created it for pleasure. There is way more pleasure when one participating isn't worrying about whether or not it's right, if they'll get caught, will he/she be with me tomorrow, will I get pregnant, or whatever. I don't think true intimacy can happen without the solid commitment of marriage.
(Incest/rape are not being discussed here.)
That's all well and good StormerGirl. But that kind of high mindedness might just lead to more abortions. Not everyone is going to wait until marriage to have sex. To base policy on that is going to be incompetent.
My high minded thinking also affords FREEDOM from a lot of pain.
The "highmindedness" that you seem to condemn in stormgirl is directed in the wrong place...you seem to be shooting at her for that position...when in fact she is simply reminding all of us of God's standards for people.
Seems to me that your issues are with God, not stormgirl, Rick, or now me.
God can handle your questions, I promise you that. I would challenge you to search the Scripture for yourself and see what God teaches and what standards He wants us to live by.
"Highminded?" You'd better believe it! Possible? Sure! Worth it? Most definitely!
Realistic? Most definitely not.
RA...many things in life seem unrealistic, at first glance. A plane flying, sperm and egg leading to the birth of a baby, space shuttle going into space. All of those things seem unrealistic, at least until you dig deeper and learn about them.
I would challenge you to get a copy of the Bible. Look in the New Testament and read the book of John. There, you'll be exposed to God in flesh through Jesus Christ His Son.
Give it a chance. I have no doubt that God has a message for you in it.
M.Steve, your note make me remember something my 16 year old shared with a couple twelve year olds this week. The 12 year olds were discussing a friend who doesn't believe in God "because I don't believe in anything I cannot see." My 16 year old said, "Well, ask her if she believes she has a heart or a brain." She went on to challenge them with things like oxygen and wind, too.
You are right in your assessment of what my high-minded thinking is about, by the way.
I have hesitated entering this discussion merely because people would think I enter just because I'm Rick's wife but I cannot remain silent.
Abstanance is God's standard for many reasons that are not just because He's holding out an unreasonable or outdated standard. It's also a practical standard and one meant to protect us.
It is one that protects the unborn from being born into a family (or single parent) unprepared for the responsibility of parenthood.
It also protects those partaking in sex from sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes, HIV, etc.
If both parties wait until marriage then neither has to worry about those issues.
It is not unreasonable nor unrealistic.
I remember my sister-in-law saying that she told her brother, my husband, before he met me that he was unrealistic in having such high standards when he was approaching 30 and not wanting to marry anyone that was not a virgin. She told him there was no such animal in this day and age.
However, God had saved me for him.
It is possible.
It is, through God's power, necessary to be set apart and different.
I am not saying that abortion will not happen. I am just saying that just because it happens does not make it right and it does not mean that we should make it easy. It also means that we should continue to teach what is right and the only thing that is right is abstinance.
Truth has always been truth and will always remain truth. Man cannot change truth just because we want convenience in our lives. God's standards remain the same. We need to teach the next generation God's standards, not give them excuses to sin.
Never feel that you cannot add to the conversation. Your wisdom is appreciated.
RA, please watch the short (3 min) video I have included on my blog. I'd like to hear your comments about it.
Thank you, Sally. I'm not too good at putting my beliefs into writing really. Well said.
My grandparents (both maternal and paternal sides) were virgins.
My parents were virgins.
We were virgins.
I pray that my girls and their spouses will have the intimacy and freedom of the same.
I have been accused of being "proud" because of it and there was a brief time in my life that hurt me/offended me that was perceived that way.
There is no question that it takes a lot more STRENGTH to be disciplined prior to the marriage bond and the benefits of that are beyond measure.
24 years later, married to the same man, I have no regrets, no diseases, no emotional hurts, no fears, no babies born to us that WE did not raise, and so much more. Again, this is FREEDOM.
I don't typically wade into these volatile waters, but here goes.
I think one of the core principles of the Gospel is to focus on our own sins as the only ones we can truly affect. (log, speck, eye) Oklahoma teen birth rates and abortion rates are above the national average.
Downs children are not nearly as visible as they were some time ago. Statistics are showing that few Christian families are as strong as Todd & Sarah Palin choosing to keep their Downs baby. Apparently abortion rates for Downs kids are nearly as high among Christians as not.
These blog 'conversations' rarely change anyone's mind, but one thing I would like to point out, is that it is an easy 'feel good' thing to condemn a political party or President (or point the finger at anyone), it is FAR harder to engage people to prevent these teenage pregnancies, and abortions and loosing all our Downs babies in the first place.
This is not to say anyone is or is not doing these things, it is to point out the principle I think the Master was laying down in the Gospel.
Law is easy, Grace and self control are hard. Lord have mercy on us all.
Monk: You are right. Law is easy. Grace and self-control are hard.
They are hard, but they are not impossible with God.
It is also easy to "give up" and say, "well, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well condone it."
It is really hard, in our culture, to stand with God on His word and declare the Truth. Much of the time, His truth is not declared in love.
It is my goal to declare God's truth in love.
Thanks so much for wading in these waters. You are always welcome! (and yes, we need to meet for lunch one day!)
I would like to have lunch soon.
I am curious about your 'give up' comment. I don't suggest anything of the sort, in fact I think I suggested a redoubling of effort, just in another direction.
It is my opinion that Civil Law is a distraction brought about by our Constantinian heritage. This impression was strengthened by a (of all things Southern Baptist) Missionary friend of mine who discussed the Churches in Myanmar (Burma), and how surpised he was that they were freed from messing with politics by not being able to have ANY influnce on the topic.
Not that I am advocating such a radical position here, but I don't see how the affects of the Fall are ever mediated by a Civil Law.
In fact, so I hear, if righteousness can come via a Law, then Christ died in vain. :)
Monk: As I read back over my comment, I see it wasn't very well articulated. I am extremely behind this week, because of being caught out in the ice storm, and well may have written without constructing my thoughts very well.
I wasn't directing my comment AT you, for sure. I was just simply stating more of what I think, without much to buffer it. (kind of, 'thinking out loud') I do think, however, that I was trying to agree with you! ;-)
And to be clear, I completely agree with your last statement: "In fact, so I hear, if righteousness can come via a Law, then Christ died in vain." Amen!
Monk - you know Easley?
Yes, I do, StormGirl.
Post a Comment