Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History

Covenant News ^ | 1/11/02

[truthandlife]

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion-family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning. Also on Thursday, Bush signed the labor, education and health spending bill, and a defense spending bill that was widely reported by The Associated Press (Bush Signs Defense Spending Bill).

[DittoJed2]

My mother took birth control pills to KEEP me. I was a twin and my twin died when mom was 3 months pregnant.

[sneakypete]

: If you have to become the Rats in order to defeat the Rats, what exactly is the point?

Power and wealth are the point. Being the one with the authority to appoint friends and/or relatives to feral gooberment jobs as agency heads is the point.

[Aristophanes]

Read the bill, the article is a lie. The bill prohibits the money for abortion and pro-abortion groups, but hey lets not let facts get in the way.

Read the article, it's the bill that's the lie here. It purports to restrict money for abortion, but in fact as has been pointed out several times here, it doesn't mention abortion by chemical means (RU486, morning after pills, etc.) and everyone knows (including Planned Parenthood) that these so-called restrictions aren't worth the paper its printed on.

Let's sum up, shall we? Here's the bottom line:

This bill will

1. Reward the bloodsoaked UNFPA to the tune of $25 Million dollars. Even if they stopped supporting abortion tomorrow, why reward this odious killers?

2. Do nothing to stop these "family planning" agencies from dispensing abortion and sterilization by chemical means. Putting aside whether the pill acts as an abortifacient (it does) this means that RU486 is perfectly within the guidelines of this bill's "restrictions."

End of story. The Headline should read "Bush Rewards Killers with Megabucks, Touts Toothless Restrictions Against Only Some Abortions."

Some pro-life President.

[Aristophanes]

This still pays for abortions. The "health of the mother" is not mentioned, but I read it between the lines...don't you?

Excellent point, .30. What happened to all these people who were so adept at deconstructing Clinton speak? Now when it comes out of the "burning Bush" they've completely lost their ability to think and read critically.

It's "Twilight Zone" weird around here these days.

[rdavis84]

BUSH’S "MEXICO CITY" ABORTION POLICY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS

Got the usual crew all upset.

[RightOnline]

What an incredibly shi**y little thread. I thought I had pretty much seen it all here on FR, but to see so many folks foaming at the mouth, hell-bent on attacking the Prez in the most vile ways is beyond the pale.

I want to hear one of you geniuses tell me who your idea of a f**king "savior" would have been, since Bush is now dubbed Satan, Jr.

This makes me want to puke.

[Aristophanes]

The main problematic feature of this foreign aid bill, from a pro-life perspective, is the money which it provides to UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, which I think was increased to a total of $37.5 million. The UNFPA claims that it does not promote abortion (see http://www.unfpa.org/about/faq.htm#abortion ) but there is evidence that their claim is not honest (see http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0018238.html ).

Plus, the UNFPA promotes so-called "birth control" methods such as IUDs and "emergency contraception" that kill unborn human embryos, though they are not conventionally called "abortions."

Unfortunately, the votes are not there in Congress for ending UNFPA funding.

Neverthless, the bill Bush signed does not fund abortion,

Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?

[Aristophanes]

If you would like supporting info on how the Pill acts as an abortifacient, do a Google search on the words "Pill abortifacient." Then you can spend the next month reading all about it. You can go here for one such article about this.

The pill kills. The pharmaceutical companies have known this all along. The lawsuits are just beginning now. Wait another 15 years and we'll see how many of them are bankrupted by their criminal acts.

[Aristophanes]

Here's another article Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?

There are several more on the epm site, not to mention all the footnoted references in this one.

[xsive_guy]

ping to myself for later...

[hocndoc]

All contraceptives are not the same, and the physiology is not simple. Women actually take supplements of progesterone after becoming pregant, in order to support the new pregnancy. The oral contraceptives and separate components are vital for all sorts of medical purposes, including regulating irregular cycles and abnormal bleeding.

As I've said, I'm not convinced that the combination oral contraceptives cause abortion. The article by Alcon is very informative and covers much of the information that I've seen elsewhere, but the numbers, experience, and, yes, the fact of an incidence of reported rates of ectopic pregnancies convince me that the combination oral contraceptives do not cause abortion.

There is an excellent case to be made (as mentioned by Dr. Walter Larimore) that the pills (OC's)decrease conception by the first two mechanisms, and so lead to a decrease in the actual number of abortions (spontaneous) each year. There is also a case to be made for "double effect" in the use of OC's, as there is for death brought on by pain meds in palliative medicine. Dr. Larimore rejects the double effect idea, saying that the existence of Natural Family Planning negates the need for OC's. He and I disagree on the effects of the two methods. He and I agree on patient education, informed consent, and teaching patients who do use the pills when to use back up contraception or abstention.

Making an exagerated accusation against President Bush is not the way to educate anyone. I wonder how many people who could have benefited from education about the risks of improper use of OC's read beyond post 27?

[.30Carbine]

It's "Twilight Zone" weird around here these days.

That's the truth. Some of us see it. Some cannot. This only adds to the weirdness.

[The Old Hoosier]

It's not that they have a veto-proof majority. They never have to let it see the light of day. The dems who voted for it last time around did so under pressure, because they know that defending PBA is a loser politically. So, being forced to vote, they voted for.

But if they can avoid even bringing it up for a vote, you're going to have at least 40 senators, including some pubbies, who will prevent it from coming to the floor of the senate, and thus prevent having to put their names on the record in opposition.

[homeschool mama]

Did you read post #145? Explains very well what Bush signed. I'd appreciate your comments after reading it. Thank you.

[ncdave4life]

* * * CORRECTION * * *

ncdave4life (yeah, that's me) wrote:

The article is inaccurate. ... It is entitled:

Bush Okays Abortion Spending

...But that is incorrect. Under the Mexico City policy which President Bush reinstated a year ago, the money MAY NOT be used for abortion or abortion advocacy.

So far, so good. If I'd stopped there, I'd have been correct. But I didn't stop. I erred when I continued, writing:

Also, because money is fungible, it MAY NOT be given to organizations (like Planned Parenthood) which perform abortions or do abortion advocacy, even for purposes unrelated to abortion.

Unfortunately, that "fungibility" provision of the old Mexico City policy is not in this bill. This bill severely weakens the fungibility provision, by applying it only to organizations that are involved with "coercive" abortions.

I greatly regret my error.

However, it is still true that the article accusing Bush of okaying "abortion spending" is wrong, and it is still true that Bush did his very best to make this bill as pro-life as possible. The Senate version would have permitted funding of abortions with tax dollars, as was done under Clinton. It was Bush's veto threat that got the prohibition on abortion funding back into the bill. Unfortunately, President Bush's leverage was limited. He really needed that foreign aid bill passed, so his veto threat was a pretty drastic action. He did what he could get, and the result really was probably the best we could hope for with the Senate in Democrat hands.

And here's some good news:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606557/posts

Possible UNFPA Cuts Rile Activists

WASHINGTON (AP) - Abortion rights advocates Friday accused President Bush of bowing to conservatives when he indicated he may cut some of the $34 million Congress appropriated for a U.N. family planning agency.

The money for the United Nations Population Fund, also known as UNFPA, was included in a $15.4 billion foreign aid bill that Bush signed into law Thursday. The organization helps countries deal with reproductive and sexual health, family planning and population strategy.

Bush made a point of noting in an accompanying statement that it gives him "additional discretion to determine the appropriate level of funding for the United Nations Population Fund." ...

President Bush is da man!

-Dave

[ncdave4life]

Aristophanes wrote:

Dave -- you've just shown in the highlighted portions above why this bill funds abortions, by funding the UNFPA. How do you then immediately turn around and justify your contention that it "does not fund aborion"?

Because it doesn't. It flatly prohibits using the funds for abortions.

If you pass a law that funds ABC and prohibits XYZ, but someone breaks that law, steals the money intended for ABC, and uses it for XYZ, you can't then say that the law "funds XYZ."

According to this law, it is illegal for the UNFPA to accept U.S. money and also promote abortion.

They claim they don't promote abortion. I don't trust them, either. But I trust President Bush. And I'm an optimist. It is quite possible that, because of the discretion that Bush has over UNFPA funding, the UNFPA thieves might actually clean up their act, so that they can keep their funding. If they don't, Bush will almost certainly cut them off. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606557/posts.

BTW, IUDs, "emergency contraception," Depo-Provera, and other birth control methods that prevent implantation do, in my opinion, kill an unborn child, and I would ban them. However, they are not conventionally called "abortion." I'm just using the words in the English language as Webster defines them. It isn't my fault that they don't always mean what I think they should. So to those who would say that this bill funds abortion because it pays for IUDs, I would reply that, though they are right about the nature of the problem, the accusation is nevertheless false. IUDs are like abortions in that they also kill unborn human beings, but they are not "abortions."

-Dave

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Aristophanes]

BTW, IUDs, "emergency contraception," Depo-Provera, and other birth control methods that prevent implantation do, in my opinion, kill an unborn child, and I would ban them. However, they are not conventionally called "abortion." I'm just using the words in the English language as Webster defines them. It isn't my fault that they don't always mean what I think they should. So to those who would say that this bill funds abortion because it pays for IUDs, I would reply that, though they are right about the nature of the problem, the accusation is nevertheless false. IUDs are like abortions in that they also kill unborn human beings, but they are not "abortions."

All well and good, but what about RU486 -- aka "the abortion pill"? You and I and whoever else can disagree on whether "emergency contraceptives" and the IUD are abortifacients, or "abortion by other means" -- but there's no hiding behind semantics when it comes to RU486, which is a drug with no other purpose than abortion. This bill does nothing to prevent the funding of RU486; thus this bill funds abortion.

As for your earlier argument, it fails to persuade me. What we have here is "plausible deniability" on the part of the Bush Administration. In effect, they're meeting a notorious hired killer in a dark alley, handing him a bundle of cash in a brown paper bag, and telling him "Now don't you kill anybody with *this* money, hear?" (Wink, wink.)

I stand by the article and by my guns. At best, the Bush Administration is a bunch of bungling, naive inept fools. At worst, they're complicit in murder.

[Hugh Akston]

If one reads the bill, they find language such as this:

Provided further, That none of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions: Provided further, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion: Provided further, That in order to reduce reliance on abortion in developing nations, funds shall be available only to voluntary family planning projects which offer, either directly or through referral to, or information about access to, a broad range of family planning methods and services,...

Etc etc etc.