Senate: End Abortion Fund Limits Abroad (Mexico City policy)

yahoo News! ^ | Wed Jul 9 | KEN GUGGENHEIM

[nickcarraway]

WASHINGTON - Ignoring a veto threat, the Senate voted Wednesday to end the Bush administration's policy prohibiting family planning assistance to health centers abroad that promote or perform abortions.

An amendment to lift the ban was included in a $27 billion bill authorizing State Department spending and foreign assistance programs. It was approved by voice vote after an amendment to set aside the proposal was defeated 53-43. A vote on the overall bill is likely Thursday.

But the amendment faces huge obstacles to becoming law. The version of the bill under consideration in the House includes no such provision and House negotiators can be expected to strenuously oppose it when the two versions are reconciled.

The abortion policy debate dates back to the Reagan administration, with the Senate traditionally opposing the ban and the House supporting it.

If provision survives the House-Senate conference, President Bush would veto the entire bill, the Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer D-Calif., said she hoped the vote in the Republican-led Senate "will give momentum to those in both parties in the House who find this gag rule repugnant."

Boxer said in an interview that she would like to meet with Bush to persuade him that changing the policy "would save women's lives, would foster better health care and will stop thousands of illegal abortions."

Opponents of the ban say it denies urgently needed money to organizations offering a wide array of health services, often in impoverished areas. They say it denies not only abortion rights that American women have, but also free speech rights.

Supporters of the ban say the many Americans who oppose abortion don't want their money to even indirectly promote the procedure.

"Why would we take something so controversial, so counter to so many Americans' fundamental beliefs, fundamental thoughts and say to the American taxpayers we're going to use your dollars to do this?" said Sen. Sam Brownback R-Kan.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Boxer's amendment could jeopardize the bill because of the veto threat.

That bill consists of $9 billion in funding for State Department operations, $17 billion in foreign assistance programs and $1 million for Bush's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which would increase foreign aid

[nickcarraway]

Soon your tax dollars may be going to pay for abortions and forced sterilizations overseas.

[nickcarraway]

In November 2002, pro-life voters had a huge impact on the Senate elections. Now not even 50 senators could vote to against paying for abortions in other countries. Even if abortion is legal, should U.S. tax payers be forced to pay for abortions in other countries?

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic. More Bang For The Buck!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[goldstategop]

Its not going to pass the House and even it does it won't survive a presidential veto. End of story.

[livius]

This is awful. It figures that Barbara Boxer was behind it. But who were the Republican Senators that must have voted for it?

[nickcarraway]

ping

[jimkress]

That bill consists of $9 billion in funding for State Department operations, $17 billion in foreign assistance programs and $1 million for Bush's proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which would increase foreign aid

VETO! We don't need any of the stuff in this bill.

[goldstategop]

Your New England RINOs. Republicans have enough votes to sustain a veto. Even Babs Boxer knows this has no chance of becoming law.

[CyberAnt]

No they won't! A veto is already promised. Besides, the dems are only doing this to try to win votes from Hispanic people. They don't give a hill of beans about these people.

The dems know Mexico is primarily a Catholic country and that the only way families can keep from being overwhelmed with multiple babies - they can't feed - is to have an abortion. If the Catholics would just stop this practice of no birth control, abortion would drop probably by more than half.

[nickcarraway]

Why would only 43 sentors vote against it?

[goldstategop]

Do the math. 43 is more than the number needed to sustain a veto.

[Desdemona]

The lefties are trying to lay a trap for Mr. Bush. This is truly reprehensible.

[realistic]

Excuse me but bushwah, Mexico is a rich country run by thugs. The country has the resources to take care of their own, they just don't. It's easier to travel north & expect me to take care of their problems.

[nickcarraway]

You're believing what the left tells you. Besides, there is no indications that mexicans don't have access to birth control. the PRI-the party that ruled Mexico until recently- was severely anti-Catholic and cracked down hard on the religion. Mexico doesn't have a problem because it has too many people- it has a problem with how the country is run.

If the Catholics would just stop this practice of no birth control, abortion would drop probably by more than half.

Except, it always works the opposite way. Introduce birth control and abortions skyrocket-just like in the United States

[livius]

New England RINOs. I shoulda known.

[SpookBrat]

Thanks for the ping Nick.

Victorious friend, thought maybe you might find this interesting.

[CyberAnt]

Well ... abortions skyrocked because they became legal ... not because of the introduction of birth control. Besides, when you cannot get birth control - or you don't want people to know what you've been doing in the bedroom - you have an abortion. I believe the advent of loose morals has done more to increase abortions than anything else. It's a way for young women to sleep around and not have to pay any consequences.

Catholics ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, even in Mexico.

Oh by the way ... I have an Hispanic daughter-in-law ... and that's where I get my information. She still has family in Mexico.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Boxer said in an interview that she would like to meet with Bush to persuade him that changing the policy "would save women's lives, would foster better health care and will stop thousands of illegal abortions."

Let her try, she won't succeed.

[CyberAnt]

"bushwah"

Excuse me ... if you want people to join you to make a difference, it would work better if you don't insult people or say rude things to them.

And ... what do thugs who run a country have to do with birth control/abortions ...??

[Conservative Iowan]

You should inform yourself on the views of Margaret Sanger, foundress of Planned Parenthood. She very much knew that the promotion of birth control would lead to abortion.

You said, "I believe the advent of loose morals has done more to increase abortions than anything else."

And the advent of birth control has done more to increase loose morals than anything else. Before artificial contraception became available, one generally didn't enter into sexual relationships lightly, because of the natural consequence that could often include pregnancy. With the advent of birth control, it was seen as a way to indulge in immoral behavior outside of marriage without the consequences of pregnancy. However, and Planned Parenthood was very much aware of this, birth control is not 100%, and since the mentality was already one of wanting to avoid pregnancy at all costs, it was really only a short step from contracepting to aborting when the pill/condom/etc. failed.

You also said, "Catholics ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, even in Mexico."

LOL! If only Catholics would follow the Church's teaching!!! Sadly, the generally accepted figure is that approximately 90% of Catholics ignore the Church's teachings the artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. The use of artificial birth control is gravely sinful, yet most Catholics JUST DON'T CARE! Don't know if the figure is as high in Mexico as here in the U.S., but I highly doubt that there is anywhere NEAR 100% faithful acceptance of this teaching of the Catholic Church there.

Another flaw in you theory that if the Catholic Church approved birth control, then abortions would drop dramatically, is that around 65% - 70% of all abortions are sought by non-Catholic women, who, presumably, would feel no need to follow a Catholic teaching. If that is the case, then how are their abortions going to decrease, if many of them most likely are using contraception, which just so happened to fail them? And of course, the 30% - 35% of abortions sought by Catholics is a grave scandal in and of itself. They definately aren't following Catholic teaching regarding the sanctity of life and the evil of abortion. If they aren't following Church teaching that says it is a grave evil to kill your unborn child, they probably aren't too concerned about teachings against birth control. Very sad, all in all.