Obama's reversal of the Mexico City Policy
People are claiming that we are now using out tax dollars to fund overseas abortions now that Obama has reversed this policy. Here are the facts:
The Helms Amendment already prevents US dollars from funding abortions overseas and has done so for over 35 years. It states, "No foreign assistance funds 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."
The policy he reversed stated that if these places offered abortions using their own or their own government's funding, we would give them no assistance to other areas of service they provide. These services include education about high risk behaviors (such as promiscuity), STD prevention, medicine to help those with such diseases including HIV/AIDS, contraception, condoms and dangers of "underground" abortions. And, of course, the fact that abstinence is the safest behavior is always told.
In my view this is the pragmatic and best overall policy we should be enacting. Education, prevention and medication for those who would otherwise not have access to such without using our funds for a practice about half of our population is dead set against.
To further explain the process behind this:
Say a fellow citizen is very poor and has a smoking habit. They have $50 a month leftover after bills. The money they should be spending on food is being divied up to also support their smoking habit. As a society we see the need for them to have more food so that they are able to live a more productive and healthy life than they currently are. So we approve through our systems to give them an additional $75 a month in the form of food stamps. This money cannot be used for anything but food.
They now have access to $75 in food stamps and that $50 a month of leftover spedning after bills are paid. Should they choose to use the $50 to still buy cigarettes, that is their decision and is not a reflection at all on how we are spending our money. The reason we give the $75 for food is because it will improve their lives. To suddenly take the money away because we learn they are doing something half of us don't like is nothing more than hypocrisy. A philanthropic deed should not have strings attached especially if the philathropist does not have any laws against themselves for the same actions.
The Helms Amendment already prevents US dollars from funding abortions overseas and has done so for over 35 years. It states, "No foreign assistance funds 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."
The policy he reversed stated that if these places offered abortions using their own or their own government's funding, we would give them no assistance to other areas of service they provide. These services include education about high risk behaviors (such as promiscuity), STD prevention, medicine to help those with such diseases including HIV/AIDS, contraception, condoms and dangers of "underground" abortions. And, of course, the fact that abstinence is the safest behavior is always told.
In my view this is the pragmatic and best overall policy we should be enacting. Education, prevention and medication for those who would otherwise not have access to such without using our funds for a practice about half of our population is dead set against.
To further explain the process behind this:
Say a fellow citizen is very poor and has a smoking habit. They have $50 a month leftover after bills. The money they should be spending on food is being divied up to also support their smoking habit. As a society we see the need for them to have more food so that they are able to live a more productive and healthy life than they currently are. So we approve through our systems to give them an additional $75 a month in the form of food stamps. This money cannot be used for anything but food.
They now have access to $75 in food stamps and that $50 a month of leftover spedning after bills are paid. Should they choose to use the $50 to still buy cigarettes, that is their decision and is not a reflection at all on how we are spending our money. The reason we give the $75 for food is because it will improve their lives. To suddenly take the money away because we learn they are doing something half of us don't like is nothing more than hypocrisy. A philanthropic deed should not have strings attached especially if the philathropist does not have any laws against themselves for the same actions.