Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Obama maintains ban on federal funds for abortion
5 comments
Upsetting news. From The New York Times:
It's upsetting that Obama hasn't turned out to be as much of a supporter of reproductive justice as we hoped. But it's tricky... the morons who don't understand that a woman controlling her own body is a necessity won't budge on health care reform unless they know their tax dollars won't go to providing abortions.
Dear opponents of federal funding for abortion: There are plenty of places I don't want my tax dollars to go... but guess what! Part of being a U.S. citizen is paying all our taxes. Get over this "I don't believe in it, so I won't pay for it" bullshit, because that's unrealistic. Women need reproductive care, and there is no good reason to prevent this legal procedure from being funded by federal money. There will always be a demand for abortion, and whether you decide the government can pay for it or not, women will find ways to control their reproduction. The only difference is receiving the $700 to have an abortion safely and legally vs. paying a stranger $50 for a punch in the stomach. For once, stop thinking about what your churches tell you, and start thinking about the lives of women!
GAH!
President Barack Obama signed an executive order on abortion on Wednesday that had won crucial votes for his healthcare bill, but disappointed women's groups that have been among his most enthusiastic supporters.
The order is intended to ensure the new healthcare law will maintain a ban on the use of federal money to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of a woman is in danger.
The White House announced on Sunday that Obama would sign the order in exchange for support for the massive healthcare overhaul bill from Democratic abortion rights opponents' in the House of Representatives.
It's upsetting that Obama hasn't turned out to be as much of a supporter of reproductive justice as we hoped. But it's tricky... the morons who don't understand that a woman controlling her own body is a necessity won't budge on health care reform unless they know their tax dollars won't go to providing abortions.
Dear opponents of federal funding for abortion: There are plenty of places I don't want my tax dollars to go... but guess what! Part of being a U.S. citizen is paying all our taxes. Get over this "I don't believe in it, so I won't pay for it" bullshit, because that's unrealistic. Women need reproductive care, and there is no good reason to prevent this legal procedure from being funded by federal money. There will always be a demand for abortion, and whether you decide the government can pay for it or not, women will find ways to control their reproduction. The only difference is receiving the $700 to have an abortion safely and legally vs. paying a stranger $50 for a punch in the stomach. For once, stop thinking about what your churches tell you, and start thinking about the lives of women!
GAH!
Posts
March 29, 2010 at 8:34 PM
I am no feminist by any means but i agree completely with the opinions expressed. There is nothing anyone can do about where their tax dollars go, and i'm not understanding why they still insist on trying so hard to change it. Women's rights are far more important in my opinion than what churches try to instill in the minds of young kids. teenagers get bored, so they have sexual intercourse. If an abortion is the route taken it is primarily the choice of the parents, not of anyone else.
March 29, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I'd think Obama, being a father of two daughters, would consider them in his decision too. What if they became pregnant by means other than consent? Like rape? Would Obama really be against them terminating the pregnancy if it was unwanted and forced upon his daughters? What if for medical reasons, one of his daughters had to terminate a pregnancy to save her own life? What would you do, Obama? Put yourself in those shoes for once.
April 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM
I agree that women should have the right to do with what they want to their bodies. I don't necessarily agree with abortion for unnecessary reasons, but in any case a man should not be making these decisions for me or any woman for that matter. It is our choice, but the bill and this very article say that abortion is illegal EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is in danger. This bill seems pretty fair, if a woman is harmed or sexually assaulted then she is allowed to get an abortion. I do not see why a woman would need an abortion for reasons other than those listed above. If they got pregnant for different reasons then it is their fault and they should have to pay the nine months for their mistakes and put the child up for adoption.
Finally, to respond to Amy Rebecca's post. The bill clearly states that if a woman is raped or her life is in danger then the abortion is condoned and legal. He is supporting exactly what you want him to be supporting. I'm sorry to call you out but i figured you should be told the facts and what the article actually says.
April 2, 2010 at 9:26 PM
To my comment above, it was worded sloppily. I did not mean to say that abortion is illegal i meant to say that it is not federally funded unless for necessary cases of rape, incest or harm to the woman's body. You make the mistake, you pay for your mistake otherwise. I am sorry to cause confusion in my previously posted comment. :)
April 6, 2010 at 1:54 PM
It is disappointing that Obama has turned down the abortion rights. Women should have rights to an abortion. The reason is that in case that women carries a baby with down syndrome or any other disabilities, women have a hard time raising them. I know that it is not right that abortion means killing, but women needs to make their own decisions when it comes to baby raising.