Spring Break
'Mexico City Policy' rescinded by Obama
Our taxes funding abortions overseas
Paul Hawkins
Issue date: 2/3/09 Section: Opinion
President Obama's recent executive orders have been accompanied by much fanfare. As expected, he's changing policy -- from anti-terror measures to lobbyist restrictions -- but one executive order, signed behind closed doors, was the rescinding of the "Mexico City Policy."
The "Mexico City Policy" is the government policy first implemented by the Reagan administration, which takes away government aid from family planning groups that present abortion as an option.
With the stroke of a pen, the U.S. government is once again funding abortions overseas with taxpayer dollars. This issue has been a point of contention in the long and on-going debate about abortion in this country. As a pro-life American, I oppose rescinding this rule, and I disagree with organizations using aid money to fund abortion as part of family planning programs.
There are many reasons for opposition to the "Mexico City Policy." President Clinton said, when he rescinded the policy in 1993 (it was later reinstated by President Bush in 2001), that the policy was "too broad" and that it undermined family planning efforts throughout the world.
Critics feel that the policy actually causes women in developing countries to die. Because they lack access to legal abortions, they choose unsafe abortion methods that can lead to fatal health complications.
These major criticisms, however, do not hold up. The Web site for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops helps to answer these assertions:
International aid groups appropriate millions of dollars every year for family planning programs. Groups still engage women in developing countries and provide them with family planning services. The rule simply contends that groups change their policies to exclude abortion as a method of family planning to receive the funding.
Furthermore, groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation have continued to operate. They simply make up their lost funds by raising private donations.
The "Mexico City Policy" is the government policy first implemented by the Reagan administration, which takes away government aid from family planning groups that present abortion as an option.
With the stroke of a pen, the U.S. government is once again funding abortions overseas with taxpayer dollars. This issue has been a point of contention in the long and on-going debate about abortion in this country. As a pro-life American, I oppose rescinding this rule, and I disagree with organizations using aid money to fund abortion as part of family planning programs.
There are many reasons for opposition to the "Mexico City Policy." President Clinton said, when he rescinded the policy in 1993 (it was later reinstated by President Bush in 2001), that the policy was "too broad" and that it undermined family planning efforts throughout the world.
Critics feel that the policy actually causes women in developing countries to die. Because they lack access to legal abortions, they choose unsafe abortion methods that can lead to fatal health complications.
These major criticisms, however, do not hold up. The Web site for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops helps to answer these assertions:
International aid groups appropriate millions of dollars every year for family planning programs. Groups still engage women in developing countries and provide them with family planning services. The rule simply contends that groups change their policies to exclude abortion as a method of family planning to receive the funding.
Furthermore, groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation have continued to operate. They simply make up their lost funds by raising private donations.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
X
posted 2/03/09 @ 1:10 PM EST
We put up with your President for 8 years and we watched him ruin everything. This policy will not affect you at all. Get over it.
Person with Uterus
posted 2/03/09 @ 8:30 PM EST
Oh how terrible. A country with a reputation for abuse towards women will be getting funding to help these women rise above something more than "walking birth canal". (Continued…)
"Walking birth canal"
posted 2/04/09 @ 1:34 AM EST
"As a pro-life American, I oppose rescinding this rule, and I disagree with organizations using aid money to fund abortion as part of family planning programs. (Continued…)
Hmm ...
posted 2/04/09 @ 7:39 AM EST
I'm not sure where you got the idea that people can decide whether their tax dollars support things they dislike. After all, a good number of us don't like tanks either . (Continued…)
why am I not surprised?
posted 2/04/09 @ 2:55 PM EST
ohhhh well since the US conference of catholic bishops says it, it must be true. This wasn't even worth reading, Paul. You're talking out of your asshole and probably couldn't be less informed. (Continued…)
Post a Comment