[Hillary's Statement & Update!] Will President Obama Keep His Promise to Women?
By Pat Racimora on January 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM in Abortion, Current Affairs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Women, Women and Children
(PatRacimora bumped this up from January 22nd to 23rd, after she updated her post with President Obama’s rescission of the Global Gag Order. I visited State’s “What’s New” page and happened to discover a Friday, January 23rd announcement by Secretary Hillary Clinton Friday on the gag order, published in full below the fold – Susan)
UPDATE: January 23, 4:30 p.m. EST] The wait was less than 24 hours after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. For this we thank President Obama. Millions of women will benefit from having access to information. ABC reported that the President rescinded the Global Gag Rule just a few minutes ago.
(Thursday’s Post)
Today, the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize abortion, women earned the right to control their own bodies. That ruling still stands (despite concerns that it could be reversed).
Less well-known than the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is the “Mexico City Policy,” otherwise known as the “Global Gag Rule.”
Repeal of the Mexico City Policy
Remarks
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
Washington, DCPresident Obama’s repeal of the global gag rule, which has prevented women around the world from gaining access to essential information and healthcare services, is a welcomed and important step taken during the first days of the Administration.
For the past seven years, this policy has made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and healthcare services. Rather than limiting women’s ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families.
As I said in Beijing at the United Nations 4th World Conference on Women, women must not be denied the right to plan their own families. I look forward to working with the President, my colleagues in the Administration, and the NGO community to promote programs and policies that ensure women and girls have full access to health information and services.
Returning to the ORIGINAL POST BY RATRACIMORA:
As described by Pat Bakalian, Executive Director of the Campaign for Gender Equality :
A gag rule preventing federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion, perform the procedure, or advocate abortion access was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan during a population conference in Mexico City in 1984. It has had devastating effects on women in all parts of the world. It is well documented that the health and nutrition status of women and children is linked to family size. Maternal and infant mortality rises with the number of births and with births too closely spaced. President Bill Clinton rescinded this rule in 1993, stating that it had undermined efforts to provide safe family planning in foreign nations. In 2001, George W. Bush reinstated the policy.
As recently as yesterday, the news was that President Obama would overturn the Mexico City Policy today. Fox News announced:
President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday [today] reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States. Obama will sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.
Well, apparently not. According to CBN ,
A source with knowledge of the situation says the fact that Obama will not issue this executive order today (on the same day of the huge March for Life rally in DC) sends a strong signal to religious leaders across the political spectrum that President Obama wants to set a different tone in Washington.
It is unclear whether Obama intends to reverse the Mexico City Policy at some point in the future but this reliable source tells me that this move signals that Obama will stress the need for reducing abortions in this country rather than focus on the divisive tit for tat policy reversals of the past. As a matter of fact, President Obama may actually release an abortion related statement today about this need to reduce them. The point here is that President Obama has opted out of the “in your face” politics of the past. He may reverse Mexico City Policy at some point. Many on both sides of the abortion debate expect he probably will at some point but today is a day where Obama took the more tactful and less confrontational approach.It looks like the debate over abortion is now shifting to not just how to reduce abortions but also to women’s health issues. Clearly, the Obama administration is showing that it has other priorities that they want to focus on and for a President who has said he wants to be inclusive this would be a bold move in that direction.
So, if the Christian Broadcasting Network has it right, women around the world will just have to wait, for how long is unclear. I hope that that missing what would have been an historic day for reversing this policy was not a stalling technique or an attempt to placate the anti-choice crowd. Let’s watch and see.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Caroline Theories for dropping out:
http://gawker.com/5137446/caroline-kennedy-failure-theories-explained
So I’m not quite sure what was wrong with not using tax money for things OUTSIDE THE US that a ton of people disagree with is a problem, but great work O.
“A gag rule preventing federal money from going to international family planning groups that counsel women on abortion, perform the procedure, or advocate abortion access.”
That is my tax money, being spent in other countries, for something I don’t agree with. How egalitarian.
Do people understand the difference between actual restrictions and restrictions on federal spending? Or are people so outright stupid that they think something simply can’t be done unless the federal government pays for it?
Anyway, great milestone, and what a courageous time to issue the order.
I was waiting for someone to say this. I would like someone to tell me just why our tax money should be used to pay for abortion across the planet. I have been reading a little bit about population and abortion, and the effect abortion can have on a country’s ability to survive, and I do think that it bears looking into.
I’m not sure whether I can say this succinctly, but many of the countries around the world are entering an age of great difficulty, and decreasing birth rates have a lot to do with it. Those country’s with a history of social programs, such as socialized health care, are finding that they can not financially continue to support these programs at the same level of quality with their birth rate in decline. As the birth rate of the citizenry declines, the number of citizens becoming adult taxpayers will also decline. As this happens, you end up with the elderly at one end, with their health care becoming increasingly more expensive and their contribution to the tax coffers decreasing at the same time. A country can only continue to provide this care if you have a constant infusion of fresh taxpayers. You can do that through birth of new citizens, or you can do it through immigration. The problem with mass immigration is that you change the cultural character of the nation as a whole (see Denmark, Britain, or France for an example of this), and this is not always a positive. One way that this might not be positive (and I hope I will not get flamed for this) is when people with beliefs contrary to our culture immigrate, and give birth in greater numbers than the surrounding citizenry does at the same time refusing to assimilate. This would be one way to fight a bloodless war. Once a group can create a voting block, they can weild enough power to change laws. Think about how Great Britain has been forced to allow the Sharia courts recently. Who would have thought that a country would allow separate courts for those who ascribe to Islamic law?
Anyway, I personally do not want to feel that my tax dollars are being used for something that I personally hold as one of the great sadnesses of our time. I don’t want to get into it at all, but I feel that this permanent solution to a temporary problem speaks volumes about our culture, and not in a positive way. I know that most who travel this site do not share my feelings on this and that I’m unlikely to bridge the gap in our thinking, but for the first time this week I’m going to say that if Obama is truly considering those on the other side of this argument, maybe there’s hope. At any rate, I think that doing it on the day of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade would have been like spitting in the eyes of all those who feel passionately on the other side of this.
Mexico City was more progressive 30+ years ago and looking towards global warming and their smog issues. They had a family planning program of ‘Two Children and Two Trees’, the idea being that you could raise two children well and that you could commit to watering and caring for two trees to fight the smog issues.
It was a success, but then the likes of Warren came forward and GAGGED that most threatening thing to everyone on the planet: FAMILY PLANNING.
We are no once again in the stone age, with families having more children than they could ever hope to support and the planet too is suffering. The Global Gag Rule affects many countries besides Mexico and it must be reversed. The quality of life in these countries has declined and women’s lives have taken the greater brunt ANTI-Family planning rule. The Bush administration was more concerned with making sure Viagra was covered by insurance companies. Hemmm…
This issue to me is more important than the conjectures of why Caroline dropped out. It reminds me of the old joke of the man that was thrown from his horse, he quickly dusted himself and said he was about to dismount anyway. Same case here with Caroline, so lets get on to the big issues of the world.
I heard commnts today while out and about that He campaigned on many issues just to get the VOTE…but Now the Proof is in the White House Puddin..
Nice cartoon pat..Thats the way most people either FEEL or see the World now days…
If the Pres. doesn’t sign it tomorrow, there will be a major uprising from part of his base. Women put the Pres. in office on November 4. He should have signed it today, but tomorrow will be ok.
Let’s let him know about it. Call the White House
switchboard: 202-456-1414 and pass your message to the Pres.
Enough ! !
There won’t be a major uprising if he doesn’t do this tomorrow. You really have no clue, do you? Obama didn’t pledge to do it TODAY. He did other amazing things today in foreign/security policy.
Here is the video where he pledges to sign FOCA “first thing”. As he did other “amazing things in foreign/security policy” today I guess “first thing” means “when I get to it”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSsFzue-V-I
Hes using his twangy preacher voice in this video, I guess that personality was dominant that day.
Thanks for keeping them honest.
i think that lifting the gag rule is a good thing and i’m definitely pro-choice, but the fact that obama moved as fast as he did on this proves yet again that abortion is seen as the end-all and be-all of “progressive” politics and “women’s rights,” which i think is unfortunate.
4 years ago i posed a question on the Democratic Underground forums (now Obama cult HQ) as to what issue id any would make a person leave the democratic party (this was because i was utterly disgusted with the choice of pro-war Kerry as the nominee).
anyway, most people simply refused to answer; they would hem and haw and criticise the question and not mention anything that would cause them to abandon their blind loyalty to the democratic party. the one answer that was given most frequently, however, was abortion rights. again, i’m pro-choice, but i’m a little disappointed by the fact that abortion rights seem to be the flagship issue of the democratic party.
He did it Johnny B! (posted after the update was issued)
I agree that abortion should be legal and rare, but as someone who believes very strongly that a woman’s right to control her own body is a fundamental right, I think Obama is sending the wrong signal. The Global Gag Rule profoundly effects the lives of women in very poor countries. This goes way beyond politics and how Obama is seen by the anti-choice in this country!!
I agree. This is terrible. What is he waiting for? With his interest in Africa, Barky, more than anyone should be aware of the drastic need for birth control in poor countries. Very tragic.
Great post, Pat & cartoon!
On a side note, if you haven’t seen John Stewart making fun of Barkys inaug. speech, check it out. Its a hoot!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216538&title=changefest-09-obamas-inaugural
OMG–That is VERY funny. First time I have smiled since I learned that he didn’t carry through with helping women around the world get info they need.
WORD MATTER… Bush III by a 27 year old…
WORDS MATTER… Bush III by a 27 year old…
I hope I’m allowed to voice my beliefs here…
She doesn’t have a right to murder her own child (i.e., another’s body).
If it’s not a living human being then what it is? If it’s a living human being, then it’s murder.
Besides, legalizing abortion is not going to go over well in traditional cultures, which constitute the majority of the world’s nations.
Without even getting religion involved… this needs to not become a friendly face on some form of genocide towards “poor” nations.
Who will Paterson appoint to Gillibrand’s seat?. Maybe the Mayor Buffalo Byron Brown
Hey Sowssomething: What did you think of the cartoon? That’s what the posts should be about.
Are you a troll for the Anti-Choice brigade?
Sorry, I broke the OT rule, but I brought that post up from down below. I’m stupid besides for not realizing that the rep had to be from her district. I am sorry, but where are your manners, Johnny B. Good?
How could a mayor of Buffalo be appointed to a Hudson Valley congressional seat? The areas are on opposite sides of NY state.
Didn’t the Pope warn Obama about stem cell research and abortion? Bush said he didn’t care if anyone liked him and Obama wants everyone to love him. I don’t know which is more dangerous.
Right. Obama’s executive orders today were just so noncontroversial (not).
This is just what I expected from Obama-lies and deceit. I doubt if he ever kept a promise. Bush III.
He’s already kept campaign promises on ethics, presidential records, Gitmo, and torture. In fact, the question Wolf Blitzer asked today was, is Obama moving too fast.
democrat-
Wolf Blitzer? He’s small potatoes…..The BIG question is what does Katie Couric think?! ‘Cause, you know, she is our intellectual compass. NOT!
Well, frankly, I thought it was a stupid question since if Obama had done less, Wolf would have asked if he had moved too slow.
Still, President Obama has taken very quick steps in a short time on major, major issues. These significantly change American’s profile on key issues and affect how we are seen in the world. So a contention that Obama doesn’t keep promises is simply not supported by evidence. He can’t do everything in two days! A lot of staffers don’t even have phones and computers yet.
He has had two years to write up what he’d want.
He can sign his name (I’m assuming) pretty fast.
And even *I* could have come up with the executive orders he’s signed….and a few more.
Combine all this with his breaking of his previous FISA promise (and the wiretapping issue), we have factual basis for being concerned.
So the question was not stupid, little d.
Then Wolf Blitzer followed up with several other brilliant questions:
Is Obama just too good looking to be president?
Is the smartest and most hardworking president ever?
Is he great, really great or really really great?
How did we all get so lucky to be blessed with His presence?
WSJ says it’s coming “soon”, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
If you want to draw a crowd, mention “sex”.
If you want to clear a room, mention “sex-ism”.
That’s been my experience in this political season.
That sure is an accurate statement.
Wow. What a great statement. I will share this with Paulie Abeles, who’s doing Dr. Long’s show now on Monday nights.
Is this the way it’s going to be? Everytime something is controversial, awkward or a group marches in DC, we can expect a delay? So that Barack Obama is “not in your face.”
This does not bode well. Because if Barack Obama puts his finger to the wind every time something might “rock the boat,” or upset a particular constituency then nothing will ever get done.
You can’t lead by overwhelming concensus and popularity is very fickle [ask Caroline Kennedy]. This isn’t a campaign anymore. Today, on an anniversary of note, an executive order would have sent a strong, clear message–this is who we are, this is what we stand for: a woman’s right to choose, here or beyond our borders.
Is this another “toss” under the bus? I sincerely hope not.
But then, I’m not surprised either. Oh, happy days!
So you think Obama’s executive orders today were putting his finger to the wind? Because closing Gitmo is wholly uncontroversial?
Huh. Who knew?
Actually, I expect the President to walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m glad Gitmo is closing but this was a foregone conclusion. The American people have had it with the Bush policies.
But Barack Obama is suppose to be what a “real feminist” looks like. MS magazine said it was so. Remember the cover? And everyone joined the chorus: oh absolutely, Superman Feminist–Barack Obama!!!
So, yeah. I’m a bit ticked.
Writing up a document to “close gitmo” is controversial exactly how? It something over 80% of Americans want – it makes them feel happy.
Maybe this is some new definition of “controversy”? 2009, the year words lost their meanings.
http://www.poorrichardsalmanac.biz
UNABORTED OBAMA AD!
CATHOLIC CHURCH SPONSORED!
The first bill President Obama will sign into law is the Lilly Ledbetter law on wage discrimination. The House passed it about 10 days ago, the Senate passed it today, and Obama will sign it by next week.
That’s another campaign promise that will be fulfilled and an important one for women’s equal rights.
Ohhh, special, signing a law passed by Congress! Wowzer, that takes a real dyed in the wool feminist.
The law passed quickly because it had presidential support.
McCain would have vetoed it, or so he promised. Obama promised to sign it. He will keep his promise and sign it asap and Lilly Ledbetter, who spoke at the DNC and cut ads for Obama, will be there for the signing ceremony.
Taking a page from Mr. Obama, McCain didnt vote on Ledbetter, which is actually a somewhat messy statue of limitations case.
George Bush threatened to veto Ledbetter as written.
I dont love its wording either, and as with many things signed into law, dont think it will magically create “fair pay”. But our new president sure does love talking about it.
And I can imagine the reactions from some here if he had not signed it.
Bwahahahaha! The law past quickly because it had womens support, the support of every Democrat, every female GOP Senator, and Specter. Obama had zip to do with it.
So what? Companies will just reword job descriptions and tell women their job is somehow different than the man in the next cubicle even though they do exactly the same thing. If Obama really cared about equal rights, he would not be a sexist pig.
For me it’s always going to be, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” I’ve never seen Obama take a stand on anything and stay with it when the going gets rough. Yes, he signed an order closing Guantanamo, but the devil’s in the details. And he gave himself a year to do it. This is still in the phase of “symbolic gesture”. What is his plan? Because he can’t just put them in a different prison and go on detaining them without charges and call it change. Or perhaps he can, but I won’t be impressed.
We shall see.
He did it! (I’m writing this after the update)
Folks,
I’m happy to see that Gov Patterson picked Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary in the Senate
She looks like someone with experience and charisma that we all can support and advance for the future.
Thank you Governor for your smart selection.
This is an interesting choice. From what I’ve read Gillibrand definitely has the experience, but she’s a Blue Dog Dem which won’t make the progs happy.
But I’m glad to see a qualified woman replace another extraordinaryly gifted woman.
I agree, the Governor made a smart and rather surprising choice [I really thought Cuomo was going to get it].
I’ll be interested seeing the overall reaction.
I think President Obama can safely wait a few days on this one, unless the federal funding checks are to go out first thing in the morning. Everyone in the country has a ‘most important issue’ they expect to be dealt with on the first day. The only “signal” I see being sent is that he is human, and incapable of doing everything at once. Hillary was my candidate, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to hold my breath and have a tantrum for the next four years. He IS the democratically elected leader of the free world.
Get the message, ladies.
He’s just not that into you.
*****A
You think???? :0)
Oh, happy days!
LOL!
Excellent cartoon and post, Pat. Seems Obama is slow getting on the boat on this one, but I think he could still come through. We’ll see in the days ahead.
Great cartoon which demonstrates in one picture how what our president does affects the world. This is not about just women in the U.S. or satisfying the anti-choice crowed in the U.S.. This is about women all over the world. This is also about how can you have transparency and a gag order? How can you believe in education and give yet choose to give women only partial information. How can you want equality and yet have others,mostly men, make a decision about what a women can know or do? This is about saying you are ready on day one, and then looking like you have to study a subject that everyone knows about and Obama said he had a position on when running for President? So what is wrong with waiting one day or one week or one month, after all this mostly affects the lives of women and not the lives of men. If this was about the lives of men, then every day would count. Right?
Rich
Thank you Rich for your thoughtful and on point comment. With the exception of a few other comments above, you were the only one to address the post head on. Well done.
Thank you.
Rich
“The first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.” (Barack Obama July 17, 2007)
I am still waiting Mr. Obama. My pen or yours?
You do know Congress has to pass any bill before the president can sign it, right? Right??
Not really–a President can create an Executive Order that has the force of law.
Words are cheap!!!
and it is action that counts!
action:
Obama treated/treats Hillary like a third class citizen,
and on that basis alone he is a dead issue for me!
I am not particularly enamored of the fact that Hillary
so warmed up to Bam Bam..
but…that having been said..obama’s mistreatment of Hillary was a slap in the face of all self-effacing women…
anything he says now..is meaningless politically motivated horseshit!…
i am looking forward to seeing him unravel…and he is off to a fine start!
A good cabernet will dull the pain of the next 2/4 years!
THE END.
So what is the beef Obama is trying to start with Rush? Seems he wants a little war going on with talk radio, pretty soon he will have to mention Hannity in that mix.
I hope when Obama stirs up that hornets nest he does not get angry when the sparks start to fly, he was the one that called Rush name first today, so we will see what happens from now on.
The President ought to be above the playing field level of a talk show host. That Obama feels the need to go there to begin with… is in itself interesting. Maybe deep down he sees himself as more of “personality”. Interesting.
My mother would always say..
Beware!!!..
A NEW broom always makes a lot of noise when it first sweeps…
Obama is a “new broom” and he sure does make a lot of noise…I think that he really believes his own press…after 8 years of Bush..we really deserved someone better than a self-serving narcissist…whose only clain to fame is that he is black..wooo!!! wooo!!!
I just know that the next 4 years are gonna fly by..[not]
We have to give our new President credit when credit is due! Note–the first 50 comments or so were made BEFORE Obama took action.
This was NOT a popular move among conservatives. I am heartened that he did it knowing that he would be roundly criticized.
I hope there are many more such moves from hope to change.
But I will be watching like a hawk…
Well, if he’d wanted to exhibit REAL courage (hell, any courage at all), he would’ve signed the damned thing 24 hours EARLIER. And in a VERY PUBLIC ceremony, rather than the apparently very quiet manner he did it.
Better late than never. Hopefully, in the future, millions of women will be helped by this.
Why in heavens name would a man now becoming President start off his tenure with a action that would help encourage abortion?
One would of thought there are so many pressing issues for a new President that giving someone the funds to take a newborn life would not seems as a must do right away thing, I guess this shows the substance of the man.
Is there any systems in place to monitor these US taxpayers funds when it goes abroad under the pretext that its funds for abortion clinics, or can these funds end up in all sorts of different avenues?
I am baffled that this decision was made so hastily, all in all its a life, on one hand Obama wants to stop wars, free terrorist because its inhumane yet on the other hand he is giving others the funds to take the life of newborns, I really can’t understand the logic in that way of thinking at all.
I don’t like abortion either–I like the “legal, safe, and rare” goal of Bill Clinton. But I don’t like it when information is forbidden to be shared.
I am NOT impressed by this. He’s just throwing feminist groups a bone. He’s still a product of misogyny. And now we’ll see him on even more covers of Ms.
2008 taught me that the abortion issue was co-opted by the left to support their latent sexism. Great, I can get an abortion, but I can’t be president thanks to my vagina.
LOL good one !!!
I think there will be a woman president within a generation. Hillary was my gal, and she paved a path for someone else.
Who? I’m 43 years old and don’t see any other woman I consider qualified enough who supports the issues I care about. There will not be a woman POTUS in my lifetime unless a deal was struck with with the DNC, like they plotted for Obama and if that is how we get a woman, she’ll be some Hooter girl or something that people will vote for based on looks and not intelligence and qualifications! Just like blacks didn’t get a true black POTUS, women will be rewarded with a woman who hasn;t earned it as well.
A woman POTUS just for the sake of pacifying us is not acceptable. It can’t just be any woman! That is not the answer!
I agree. I think this is just to be able to say, look at how I helped women’s rights! And now he is done.
I am rather concerned that Obama wants to be President of the world and then he will ignore America. Tha is what Bush 41 did. He was never here! Just a world traveler. That will be Obama, too. I will enjoy that he is not here though.
oops, this went in the wrong spot!
He might heed the words of a much wiser man…
“I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.”
- Bill Cosby
This isn’t just about abortions, but also about teaching birth control to women in the poorest countries.
From wiki:
From wapo:
I am happy that Obama (un)signed – he should do what he says. That said I care much more about reproductive freedom inside the USA.
I also feel it is an overreach of the US government to spend taxpayer dollars in this manner – although I agree with the “Mexico City Policy” personally.
I know Obama is pro-choice, its one of the few things I like about him. But I think he will sell any of his ideals down the river to advance himself.
I will be impressed when his lapdogs in congress get to presenting him with FoCA and he signs it. But I don’t think its going to happen but maybe, he just pissed off pro lifers hugely and has little to lose. My feeling is Democrats dont want to see the abortion issue put to rest – it wins them too many votes.
So, sure, its a victory for women who are pro-choice and want to spend tax dollars providing abortions abroad. A general victory for women? I disagree.
Neither would FoCA be a victory for all women. Not all women agree on abortion. I see abortion as “right to privacy and integrity of your person” issue more than anything else.
Abortion is against the law in many many countries & severe penalies (death) apply to distributing information.
There are indigenous peoples who would take it as attempted genocide if abortion was promoted .This in my country also.
Apparently Obama made over 500 promises during the campaign. By comparison Bush made less than 200 and Clinton somewhere between 200-300. So there will be a lot of wishes to fulfill for a long list of constituents.
The St. Petersburg, FL paper has a nifty website that will be keeping track of what happens to each promise as we march along down this merry path.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
This is a distraction. He also bombed Pakistan yesterday, but not many in the MSM will tell you that!
I commented earlier that this is a distraction so we go on our merry way while kept in the dark about him bombing Pakistan yesterday (my posts show up, but take forever):
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_press_briefing_0123.html
It is well known how badly women in third world countries are treated. Has it occurred to anyone that many of these women are not actually given a ‘choice’ as to whether or not they abort their children? Or is it just easier to make believe?
In the prism of US culture, the Mexico City “gag” rule is seen as a tool to promote a religious stance, limit individual choice, and control access to information.
But in developing nations, US attempts at population control in other countries is viewed as meddling imperialism. Big brother coming in and dictating reproduction limits and “optimal” family size in the Third World, an attempt to Westernize the globe. Conspiracy theories of ethnic cleansing and genocide abound.
Hillary during the campaign once spoke of her seeing both sides of reproductive rights interference by goverments in her travels around the world: the devasation of China’s one child policy and the flip side of Eastern bloc countries turning women into virtual baby factories to fuel their economies.
One thing is clear to me- to have a family ( or choose not to) is a fundamental human right. Goverments across the globe need to stop medding in the exercise of our rights in this regard.
It still seems to me he wants to undo much the GW did, just to keep on the blame game. I’ll be much more interested to see if he actually makes any real change in this country (for which he is supposed to out first and foremost as his priority)!
When are we going to encourage responsibility for ones actions when possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with? I am all for helping others but we HAVE NO MONEY. Why not at least put a hold on some programs/things until some unnecessary things are cut out?
We may not be able to do much now, but at least we know we can when we can.
Thank you Hillary! I wonder if she had anything to do with the reversal in the first place. She is a great friend and ally when it comes to women, children, and families.
Uh-Oh
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-25-voa14.cfm
NO THANK YOU, MR. OBAMA!!
It is one thing to have government stay out of people’s personal lives. It is quite another to use taxpayer money to subsidize the taking of human life.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion for some of us.