How do Obama supporters feel about this (non-supporters can certainly answer as well)?

Question

Obama has reversed an order that prevents US funds from being given to companies that market or provide abortions in foreign countries. So, I am wondering, given the current situation of the worlds economy, unemployment rates rising and supposed healthcare issues in the US, is this how you wish your tax dollars be used? Do you think this is acceptable?

Also, if my religion were to say abortion is not acceptable, isn't the government doing something wrong when they tax me to pay for abortions?

Answer 1

Well according to the mainstream media, those of us who do not support abortions are out numbered and no longer have a voice in this important matter. They are louder than we are, kinda like when they made speaking of GOD and Christ Jesus illegal speech in our public schools. The Ten Commandments immoral in our courts.



They seem to have a mass of young goats following their wolf packs. Who are claiming we are speaking hate, who claim we do not care about our poor and needy, and yes our elderly. When in fact we give, not just our money, but our time and love to help and do in every good way. We just don't rely on the government to take from tax payers to pay for what they do not want to do especially without public acknowledgement, and a reward of some kind.

Answer 2

There are several misconceptions in your post. The rescinding of the "Global Gag Rule" or Mexico City Policy does not mean that you will pay for abortions. It means that your tax dollars will fund contraception regardless of whether or not an NGO is a pro-life or pro-choice organization.



Your money does not go to abortion either way.



It's become something of a hobby for Republican and Democratic Presidents to use an executive order in their first days in office to reinstate or rescind the rule.



Edit: "Ummm, government funding is already provided directly to organizations that provide abortions (along with other services) right here in the states."



Yes. The Global Gag Rule only influences organizations that are outside of the United States. Such rulings over our own domestic groups would be considered infringement of freedom of speech.

Answer 3

Give him a chance he has a lot of undoing to do remember how long it took Clinton to undo all the damage Bush sir. did to this country. You can be against abortions all you want but you still have to pay your taxes that pay for the abortions your so strongly against. Sense when is it up to us where or how the government spends our tax dollars.



Another thing it's really no ones business what a woman decides to do about her pregnancy. Do you think it's fair for these bible thumping holier then thou fanatics talk a woman out of having an abortion with empty promises. Women feel guilty enough just walking into an abortion clinic without people preying on their vulnerability. Begging women not to do it telling them they will be damned forever for killing their baby. Promising them that they will help her with the baby telling her she won't be alone. Lies all lies these so called Christan's walk away from the same women they just promised to always help her with the baby if she keeps it.Now this poor woman has a baby that she didn't want to start with and she is all alone to care for it by herself. Where are all the do gooders who made all the promises to her? People like that make me sick ! You know who you are

Answer 4

I applaud you for asking such an intelligent question.



So much money is being spent on third wold countries while our own dying economy is being ignored. While I oppose abortion, I am more opposed to so many tax dollars going overseas when we are in a financial crisis. We're acting like an adoring daddy who can deny his child nothing...so he hands over the credit card and says "go ahead, darling..." You know what I mean? We honestly need to stop this madness. It's already out of hand, and it's going to get even worse, I'm afraid.



They will never admit that your money is going toward abortion, or that they're doing anything wrong. They use the old "family planning, STD prevention, sex education" trick so they can get out of being responsible for what it actually is...just in case they hear complaints.

Answer 5

You aren't paying for abortions, and neither is Obama.





He simply lifted the ban, not sent any money.





And secondly, those "companies" are not companies. They are counselors.



And thirdly, they are family counselors, teen counselors, provide counseling on birth control (that stresses abstinence above all), and assistance in both providing monetary help to a young girl who wants to keep the baby or in placing the baby in a loving home should she choose to give it up.



And while they do provide info on abortions, they provide ALL info. They also provide info on the psychological and emotional damage it may cause; that way the girl knows EVERYTHING before she makes that decision so that she can make it responsibly.



They may provide info on abortions, but they provide an immense amount of help to give the girl incentive to not use abortion as an option.



And I assume your religion, which my guess would be Christianity, is cool with helping young girls in a bad situation trying to get some info so they can keep the baby, or better yet avoid making a baby they don't want in the first place. I know my Christian religion is cool with that.

Answer 6

You are focusing on the sound bites from the religious right that talks only about Obama being an abortion backer. The funds that Bush cut off were to any country providing family planning that included ANYTHING other than abstinence. In other words, no condoms and no other contraception, just: "Just say no". You have any idea how well THAT works in Africa? The money Obama freed up will allow poor countries to prevent possibly millions of cases of aids and sexually transmitted diseases NOT just fund abortions. Please, please don't let the so-called "Conservatives" win this spin battle, get the WHOLE story.

Answer 7

"Also, if my religion were to say abortion is not acceptable, isn't the government doing something wrong when they tax me to pay for abortions?"



How do you feel about war? Were you OK when Bush taxed you up the peephole to fund that war that he was so gung ho about? Was your "religion" OK with killing the innocent babies in Iraq? How about all those troops getting killed over there? What can you do to stop taxes? Could you stop them 8 years ago?

Answer 8

U r not paying for abortion. The man is simply trying to offer education with lots of options so the lady can make the right decsion on her situation if she is pregnant, especially if it is the selfish "i just don't want the baby" decision. When you offer education with more option it is a way to decrease the number of abortions not to increase them

Answer 9

Firstly these agencies provide birth control information and advice including abortion. As abortion is not illegal in the US why should these agencies not be able to inform and even offer women in third world countries this?



Secondly the US government is a democratically elected government which make the laws. Look at Iran if you want to see what happens in a country that is run under religious laws. In a democracy if you do not like a law for moral, ethical or religious reasons you can lobby elected officials to change the law but you are still bound by the laws of that country.



Why should women in the poorest countries in the world not have advice and help to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, this leads to more women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning. Not only this but it is often a great struggle for the women in these countries to feed the children they have.



The purpose of these agencies is to provide birth control, when women have access to birth control, education advice and contraception it leads to less abortions.



These women live in many instances in poverty unimanigable to us in the west and every child is another mouth to feed. There are many children dying of starvation, malnurished and without even basic health and education. Surely it is better to have these women able with the help of birth control reduce the number of children they have. Then at least those that are born have at least the chance of a decent life.



Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds. Undernourishment negatively affects people’s health, productivity, sense of hope and overall well-being. A lack of food can stunt growth, slow thinking, sap energy, hinder fetal development and contribute to mental retardation. In 2006, about 9.7 million children died before they reached their fifth birthday. Almost all of these deaths occured in developing countries. Every year, more than 20 million low-birth weight babies are born in developing countries. These babies risk dying in infancy, while those who survive often suffer lifelong physical and cognitive disabilities.



Those children who die of starvation find all movements become painful due to atrophy of the muscles, and due to dry, cracked skin caused by severe dehydration. With a weakened body, diseases are commonplace. Fungi, for example, often grows under the esophagus, making swallowing unbearably painful.



Do you really think it is better to allow millions of children to die in this way or provide their mothers with birth control and even abortion so that those living children have more chance of any sort of life.



It is very easy for those in wealthy countries to talk about there religious and moral beliefs but I bet most of them would opt for the abortion of another child if it meant giving birth to it would mean they would have to watch all their living children in addition to the new baby starve to death.



There is no help from the state in these countries, no food stamps, benefits, no one who wishes to adopt these unwanted children, education has to be paid for, these women are just faced with yet another mouth to feed, get medicine, cloth and educate when often there is not even enough food for the children they already have.



These agencies are not just trying to kill unwanted babies but help these women have the chance to give their living children the opportunity of a decent life.



Take a look at the websites below and maybe you could find a little more compassion for the suffering of these women and realise that the religious beliefs which stopped the funds to these agencies are causing even more terrible suffering and death to those children they suggest they are protecting.

Answer 10

It is Absolutely wrong.How can Obama claim to be a Christian and stand behind abortion.

Answer 11

I see you forgot to mention that the order he reversed does NOT use tax dollars to fund "foreign abortions". The largest majority of the funds go to general health care facilities, most of which are struggling and in areas that otherwise don't have any form of clinic or hospital.

Answer 12

Donate to tax deductible charities that you do agree with, that way you know how your money is being spent. The fact remains, we all spend money on stuff we don't like. I don't like buying bombs to kill children in 3rd world countries. I was not too fond of my tax dollars going to non-educating high schoolers on sex ed (abstinence training).

Answer 13

It goes to show where his heart is! He speaks peace, but only really is at peace with killing the unborn!!



Give me a break!!! We are in an economic crisis and he wants to send money to other countries to help slaughter babies!! IT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT HE THOUGHT OF THIS AS A "MUST DO QUICKLY" ITEM. He has only been in office a few days before signing it into action!



Goes to show, he is a TRULY EVIL MAN!

Answer 14

We feel just fine, because he is not going to fund abortions. I suggest you research your facts.



Thanks for asking.

Answer 15

Federal funds will be used for Abortions and them funds will be from taxpayers.



MEMORANDUM FOR



THE SECRETARY OF STATE



THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT



SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning



The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the "Mexico City Policy" directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.



These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.



This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.



BARACK OBAMA



THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

Obama: End abortion 'politicization'

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/24/09 8:29 AM EST

Text Size:

President Barack Obama

President Obama kept a low profile as he fulfilled a campaign promise by reversing President Bush’s policy barring U.S. aid to international organizations which provide abortions or advise women on how to get them.





President Obama kept a low profile on Friday as he fulfilled a campaign promise by reversing President Bush’s policy barring U.S. aid to international organizations which provide abortions or advise women on how to get them.



However, the new president also extended an olive branch to anti-abortion groups and expressed a desire to end what he called a “stale and fruitless debate.”



“It is time that we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said in a written statement which accompanied an official presidential memorandum canceling Bush’s abortion-related restrictions on American aid money, referred to by critics as the “global gag rule.” The new president promised “a fresh conversation on family planning” and said his aides would “reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.”



The policy towards U.S. funding to certain family planning groups has flipped back and forth as Republicans and Democrats traded control of the White House since the ban was first announced by President Reagan’s administration in 1984 in connection with a United Nations conference in Mexico City. The restrictions, which came to be known as the “Mexico City language,” stayed in place through the remainder of Reagan’s presidency and through the administration of President George H.W. Bush. The ban was dropped by President Clinton when he entered office in 1993 and reinstated by President Bush in 2001.



Obama also said he would work with Congress to restore American government support for the United Nations Population Fund, which has been blocked from receiving funds

Answer 16

the money isn't being given to fund the abortions, it's being given to the companies.



so, apathetic

Answer 17

Well not your gonna be paying for abortions in other countries.

Answer 18

Get your opinions out of my uterus. And read some facts before you make stupid statements.