Obama may quickly reverse abortion policy

[Straw Man]

Sources: Obama may quickly reverse abortion policy

Story Highlights

• President-elect Obama may act quickly to reverse controversial abortion policy
  
  Incoming president may issue executive order to reverse policy
  
  Policy bans U.S. funding of international groups that promote abortion
  
  Reagan initiated "Mexico City policy"; Clinton reversed it; Bush reinstated it

By Suzanne Malveaux
CNN White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."

Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

[Dos Equis]

And he'll follow that up by signing the Freedom of Choice Act. 

[Straw Man]

And he'll follow that up by signing the Freedom of Choice Act. 

now that's change I can believe in

once again getting keeping religious beliefs out of legislation

[Dos Equis]

now that's change I can believe in

once again getting keeping religious beliefs out of legislation

Will never happen.  You paranoid anti-religious extremists will always have to deal with "religious beliefs" influencing legislation.  Just like secular beliefs influence legislation.  It's part of the American way. 

[Straw Man]

Will never happen.  You paranoid anti-religious extremists will always have to deal with "religious beliefs" influencing legislation.  Just like secular beliefs influence legislation.  It's part of the American way. 

I'm neither paranoid nor anti-religious.

just keep religious beliefs out of leglislation which is the way it's supposed to be in the first place

other than that I coudln't give a rats ass what you or anyone else choose to believe or not believe

[Dos Equis]

That's not how it's supposed to be.  If people want to propose and/or vote for "religious"-based legislation, then they have the right to do so.  Same goes for anti-religious legislation.  There is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in the legislative process. 

[Straw Man]

That's not how it's supposed to be.  If people want to propose and/or vote for "religious"-based legislation, then they have the right to do so.  Same goes for anti-religious legislation.  There is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in the legislative process. 

Abortion is not a religious issue (and not saying or suggesting you said it was).  It's a medical issue

If someone is opposed to it based on their personal religious belief that's fine and they are free to choose not to have an abortion

No doubt individuals including legislators will be influenced by their own religious beliefs but many also cast votes in contrast to their own religious beliefs which is the way it should be done (IMO)

Here's just one example:

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

John Kerry
--Interview in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald, July 2004

[Dos Equis]

Abortion is not a religious issue (and not saying or suggesting you said it was).  It's a medical issue

If it's not a religious issue then why did you say this in response to Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act? 

now that's change I can believe in

once again getting keeping religious beliefs out of legislation

There are definitely religious aspects to abortion and many consider it a religious issue.  In fact, I wonder if Kerry (assuming he is a practicing Catholic) is still a member in good standing.  The Catholic church took a very strong Pro Life stance during the past election. 

[Straw Man]

That's not how it's supposed to be.  If people want to propose and/or vote for "religious"-based legislation, then they have the right to do so.  Same goes for anti-religious legislation.  There is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in the legislative process. 

freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

you can't have one without the other i.e. the freedom to choose a religious belief includes the choice to abstain from subscribing to any religious belief

[Straw Man]

If it's not a religious issue then why did you say this in response to Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act? 

I said it because the choice of "W" Bush (in particular) was based on personal religious beliefs

There are definitely religious aspects to abortion and many consider it a religious issue.  In fact, I wonder if Kerry (assuming he is a practicing Catholic) is still a member in good standing.  The Catholic church took a very strong Pro Life stance during the past election.

Any who considers it a religious issue is confusing their own personal beliefs with a medical procedure.

Abortion is no more a religious issue than eating pork.   Orthodox jews don't eat pork but that doesn't make a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich a religious issue 

[Dos Equis]

freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

you can't have one without the other i.e. the freedom to choose a religious belief includes the choice to abstain from subscribing to any religious belief

I said "in the legislative process."  I should also include "in the public square."  We aren't required to cleanse the public sector or the legislative process from religion, as extremist groups like the ACLU try to do.   

[Dos Equis]

I said it because the choice of "W" Bush (in particular) was based on personal religious beliefs

Any who considers it a religious issue is confusing their own personal beliefs with a medical procedure.

Abortion is no more a religious issue than eating pork.   Orthodox jews don't eat pork but that doesn't make a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich a religious issue 

And where did Bush say his decision was based on "personal religious beliefs"? 

Anyone who can't see the religious aspects of abortion has blinders on.  The second largest religious faith in the world considers it a religious issue.  Catholics were all over abortion this election.   

Many people consider abortion murder.  Many people believe their religious faith prohibits murder. 

[Hugo Chavez]

anti-religious extremists  

like being that is a bad thing

[Straw Man]

I said "in the legislative process."  I should also include "in the public square."  We aren't required to cleanse the public sector or the legislative process from religion, as extremist groups like the ACLU try to do.   

we should most certainly keep it out of the legislative process just as Kerry has explained in the quote a few posts up

[Dos Equis]

like being that is a bad thing

It's neither "good" nor "bad."  It is what it is. 

[Dos Equis]

we should most certainly keep it out of the legislative process just as Kerry has explained in the quote a few posts up

We most certainly should not.  Legislators aren't required to check their religious beliefs at the door.  Neither are voters.  We don't reject policy because it might be religious-based or have a religious influence.  That's not what church-state separation is about. 

[Straw Man]

And where did Bush say his decision was based on "personal religious beliefs"? 

Anyone who can't see the religious aspects of abortion has blinders on.  The second largest religious faith in the world considers it a religious issue.  Catholics were all over abortion this election.   

Many people consider abortion murder.  Many people believe their religious faith prohibits murder. 

just an educated guess on my part

oddly when you go to the White House website they don't even list that one which was supposedly done on Jan 22nd (just 2 days after taking office....what's the rush).   http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

The first one listed on the White House website is from January 29th which established the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.  Just nine days in office and this is the first thing he does? (or maybe the 2nd)

[Straw Man]

We most certainly should not.   Legislators aren't required to check their religious beliefs at the door.  Neither are voters.  We don't reject policy because it might be religious-based or have a religious influence.  That's not what church-state separation is about. 

Actually, that's exactly what they should do:

Repeated for reading comprehension:

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

John Kerry
--Interview in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald, July 2004

[Dos Equis]

just an educated guess on my part

So you made it up. 

[Dos Equis]

Actually, that's exactly what they should do:

Repeated for reading comprehension:

"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

John Kerry
--Interview in the Dubuque, Iowa, Telegraph Herald, July 2004

Who cares what Kerry thinks?  And BTW, large font, etc. doesn't make your point stronger at all.  It's very similar to those who use all caps. 

You're missing the fact there are two parts to the First Amendment:  the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  The "separation of church and state" deals with the Establishement Clause.  What you fail to grasp is the Free Exercise Clause, which permits legislators and voters to propose and vote on religious-based legislation.  It also prevents extremists from trying to cleanse the public square of religion. 

[big L dawg]

[Straw Man]

Who cares what Kerry thinks?  And BTW, large font, etc. doesn't make your point stronger at all.  It's very similar to those who use all caps. 

You're missing the fact there are two parts to the First Amendment:  the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  The "separation of church and state" deals with the Establishement Clause.  What you fail to grasp is the Free Exercise Clause, which permits legislators and voters to propose and vote on religious-based legislation.  It also prevents extremists from trying to cleanse the public square of religion. 

The free exercise clause pertains to Congress not making any laws that prohibit free exercise of religion and I'm not aware that Congress has attempted to pass any laws restricting themselves in this regard.  What we're talking here is personal standards of conduct and realizing that ones own personal religious beliefs should not be an influence on legislation that effects an entire country of people with varying religious beliefs.    I know this is hard to imagine given that we've had the religious right influencing legislation in this country for the last 30 years.  There is no doubt that people have and will continue to allow their strong personal beliefs to influence their legislative decisions and that's something that will not be ending anytime soon.

[BM OUT]

now that's change I can believe in

once again getting keeping religious beliefs out of legislation

Great,we should pay for abortions in other countries while our country goes bankrupt.Good thinking.Very smart.

[Straw Man]

Great,we should pay for abortions in other countries while our country goes bankrupt.Good thinking.Very smart.

I have no problem with it and if they need to find thd $$$'s to pay for it they can always close Bush's office of Faith Based Initiatives

[MuscleMcMannus]

America is not and has never been a fucking secular country.  Get the fuck over it!  We are a deeply religious country, maybe not our government but our people.  But you secularists will have your way.......American is trending downward that's for sure.