Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Admin May Try to Break Law to Directly Fund Abortions Overseas
Life News ^ | May 15, 2014 | Austin Ruse

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 Helm’s 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.

baraobam68

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.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; administration; obama
LifeNews.com Note: Austin Ruse writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax publication.
1 posted on 05/15/2014 3:47:23 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 05/15/2014 3:47:46 PM PDT by NYer ("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If they can make up the rules on what laws they’re going to obey as they go along, why can’t we?


3 posted on 05/15/2014 3:56:08 PM PDT by RichInOC (...your newest purveyor of wit, laughter and the Popish creed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

4 posted on 05/15/2014 4:02:32 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


5 posted on 05/15/2014 4:03:29 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob (You can count my felonies by looking at my FR replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.*


6 posted on 05/15/2014 4:07:28 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC
Dang what is wrong with our system that nothing is ever stopped by our system of checks and balances. We have a serious problem.

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

7 posted on 05/15/2014 4:08:25 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Oh, heck — he does what he wants. Who is going to stop him?


8 posted on 05/15/2014 4:10:36 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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???


9 posted on 05/15/2014 4:25:14 PM PDT by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period. PALIN/CRUZ 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Since when do they have to put any effort into it?


10 posted on 05/15/2014 4:33:06 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Pure evil on display.


11 posted on 05/15/2014 5:35:09 PM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

We cannot get rid of this asshat president fast enough...


12 posted on 05/15/2014 6:13:57 PM PDT by Fedupwithit (It's far past time to make people feel the repercussions of their decisions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Ping


13 posted on 05/15/2014 6:16:02 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Resist in place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
IMO, most of the good things in America that we always took for granted have never depended on checks and balances, but we're in the habit of attributing too much social good to such political formalisms. This is the dynamic behind the slow corruption of the American soul, and it's why checks and balances are not working so well nowadays: It's all too easy to kid ourselves about our intellectual and personal greatness by quoting some blustery Enlightenment gibberish about "Rights" without necessarily doing anything virtuous; indeed, more and more often it's the porn people leading that chorus.
14 posted on 05/15/2014 9:49:58 PM PDT by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
Dang what is wrong with our system that nothing is ever stopped by our system of checks and balances. We have a serious problem.

Mission creep.

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).

15 posted on 05/16/2014 11:27:14 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson