Skip to comments.Obama Admin May Try to Break Law to Directly Fund Abortions Overseas
Posted on 05/15/2014 3:47:23 PM PDT by NYer
Washington, DC (CFAM) — The Friday Fax has learned that the Obama administration may try to circumvent the long-standing Helms Amendment and allow for taxpayer-funded abortions overseas.
The change has not been made yet as the administration is trying to figure out how best to go about what could be a highly controversial change to the U.S. law which has stood for almost half a century.
The Helms Amendment, enacted in 1973, bars U.S. foreign aid from funding abortions or motivating anyone to perform one. The current issue centers on rape in conflict situations. Abortion advocates are claiming that international humanitarian law requires a right to abortion in conflict or disaster situations even in countries where abortion is against the law.
The pressure for such a change is coming from outside the administration but no doubt is finding sympathetic ears in an administration that has worked hard to advance a right to abortion through the UN.
A coalition of left-wing abortion advocates, including Frances Kissling, former longtime head of Catholics for a Free Choice, released a letter this week calling for President Obama to use his executive authority to overrule the Helms Amendment. They claim it is unacceptable — in fact immoral — for our nation to continue to apply the Helms Amendment incorrectly. The group makes clear they support eliminating the entire Helms Amendment but as a bare minimum instituting a rape, incest and health risk exclusion to the current law.
C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax, issued a memo to members of Congress last week explaining why overturning even a part of the Helms Amendment is a dangerous idea.
The memo points out that abortions in unsanitary conflict situations would place the mother to increased health risks, and that abortion funding will divert greatly needed funds from other more pressing areas including basic medical care.
The C-Fam memo also explains, international humanitarian law does not establish a right to abortion in cases of rape in conflict situations. Abortion advocates point to recent Security Council resolutions that mention sexual and reproductive health services has established a right to abortion in cases of rape. The memo points out the phrase sexual and reproductive health services has never been defined in a binding UN document as including abortion.
The memo points out that giving a rape exception to the ban on abortion funding will further stigmatize and therefore harm children born of rape who are already vulnerable.
C-Fam is concerned that altering the Helms Amendment would discriminate against faith-based aid organizations that will not commit abortion. In fact, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the umbrella organization of the Catholic Church in the United States, was denied grant renewal for an anti-trafficking program, despite being the superior grantee, because they do not offer abortion.
It is unclear at this moment whether faith-based aid groups know about the impending change. World Vision, a US-based Christian group that spends billions in support of poor people overseas, would likely not support such a change. InterAction and Accord, coalitions of aid groups, are said to be influential in decision-making at the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department where such changes are almost certainly being discussed. It is unclear whether these groups know about the change or have otherwise made their views known.
The rape exception is already allowed in US domestic funding but as one expert pointed out to the Friday Fax, In the US there can be controls. Get into conflict regions, and there are no controls. This would open the flood-gates to US funding of abortions for any reason and not just rape.
If they can make up the rules on what laws they’re going to obey as they go along, why can’t we?
Just abort all the pregnancies around the world.
We can cure global warming and protect all the jumping mice and snail darters, protect all the ancient indian broken pottery, etc.
Mass human suicide will save the earth.
This is why libertarianism versus conservatism matters, it makes a difference who the president is, and what he supports, and how strongly he supports it, and not only which party he belongs to, but whether he is conservative, or libertarian.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
We have had government where the Republicans and Democrats have controller 2 of the 3 branches and still have never experienced the likes of what is occurring now. We currently have one party that has allowed this to occur and that party is the Democrat party. They have done nothing to stop the abuses of the executive branch. Sad very sad
Oh, heck — he does what he wants. Who is going to stop him?
What the hell is wrong with these people that they have to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to kill babies??
I mean it would be so easy NOT TO fund overseas abortions on plain common sense and legal grounds..
But they are so anxious to kill babies they do this???
Since when do they have to put any effort into it?
Pure evil on display.
We cannot get rid of this asshat president fast enough...
The Legislative Branch should make the rules, the Courts rule on whether the rules are valid, and the Executive Branch enforce the rules.
Instead, the Legislative Branch tells Executive agencies to "promulgate regulations" (write laws), the Executive Branch decides what rules it will go by, if it will go by the rules, and which rules to use to attack whom, and the Judicial Branch has taken to rewriting laws so it can say they are valid.
The Legislative Branch is only concerned about someone else picking and choosing and rewriting when the results do not fit the agenda of the majority party.
It is mob rule, on a smaller scale, exacerbated by a minority party which apparently has been largely compromised, and seeks to protect their phoney baloney jobs more than call the rest to task for violating the supreme law of the land (the United States Constitution).