“Why should my tax dollars be used toward something that I strongly oppose?â€Â This question has been used many times when discussing the controversial issue of family planning measures, particularly abortion.
Even as a pro-choice individual, I was unable to provide a successful counterargument to such a stipulation because I understand the values inherent in the pro-life argument; since so many people oppose the procedure, I therefore believe funding for abortions should be generated through private organizations.
The question was once again put forth this past week when President Obama reversed the infamous Mexico City policy, a ban first placed by Ronald Reagan in 1984, which restricted federal funds from going to international organizations that provided information or even referred people to clinics that performed abortions.
Once again, although I approved the measure, since it would allow funding for more family planning services internationally, I was at a loss for words when replying to the opposing side.
Why should federal funds, which are partially, or perhaps at least minimally, acquired through the contributions of many Americans, be used for something that so many oppose?
The answer to this argument however is actually not complicated and it comes from a simple, but much-needed lesson in history.
Specifically important, are the restrictions already in place before the Mexico City policy came into effect and the mission and goals of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the government agency that allocates federal grants to international non-government organizations.
In place since 1961, The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits non-government organizations that receive United States’ federal funds to use those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.â€Â This means that since 1961, international organizations that received US federal grants were prohibited from using these sources for anything having to do with abortion.
What the Mexico City policy did was further restrict federal money from going to international organizations that used their own funds for these same purposes. In fact, as listed on their Web site, “USAID places high priority on preventing abortions through the use of family planning, saving lives of women who suffer complications arising from unsafe abortion and linking those women to voluntary family planning and other reproductive health services that will help prevent subsequent abortions.â€Â Therefore, the federal grants given by USAID are provided in order to achieve several goals that specifically include “reducing abortion,â€Â as well as fighting the AIDS/HIV epidemic.
More important than all of this official terminology and statements is to understand that the Mexico City Policy went beyond the question of abortion.
The Foreign Assistance Act, whether right or wrong, took care of that concern by placing the above-mentioned restrictions on federal grants given to international organizations.
The Mexico City policy therefore placed unnecessary bans that limited international organizations from receiving much-needed funds in order to promote healthy and safe sexual practices and voluntarily family planning which serve to further advance a healthier population world wide.
As President Obama stated, “these excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted,â€Â and further “undermined effortsâ€Â to provide international assistance to organizations that give essential services and much needed information to many people.
Beyond pro-choice or pro-life, the right of any citizen of the world to pursue a healthy life cannot be denied. It is not the place of an administration, hiding behind the righteousness of religious ideology, to deny the funds for organizations that wish to promote this right internationally.
Publius • Mar 6, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Daniela,
Actually I am quite capable of reading. Especially where you said you could not provide a counter-argument. So, I helped you out.
Also, I don’t “call” it democracy, it is democracy, Politicians do not just appear by magic, they are elected by people. As far as the Mexico City policy, you do a great job of criticizing nameless people who ask irrelevant questions.
Publius • Mar 6, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Daniela,
Actually I am quite capable of reading. Especially where you said you could not provide a counter-argument. So, I helped you out.
Also, I don’t “call” it democracy, it is democracy, Politicians do not just appear by magic, they are elected by people. As far as the Mexico City policy, you do a great job of criticizing nameless people who ask irrelevant questions.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 26, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Publius:
If you keep reading a bit further you’d see that I was quoting that question as something I’ve repeatedly heard other people say when arguing against abortions funded by the government.
Although abortion is legal in the U.S. because of what you, along with the general population, call “democracy,” there’s still a great divide on this specific issue; just because it’s legal does not mean there’s a lack of an opposing force, whether a minority on the subject or not.
Whether that question is “inane” or not, the argument is that it doesn’t even apply to this situation since government funds were not used to fund abortions internationally even before the overly restrictive Mexico City policy was placed. Just learning a bit of history helps to shatter weak arguments religious conservatives often make.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 26, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Publius:
If you keep reading a bit further you’d see that I was quoting that question as something I’ve repeatedly heard other people say when arguing against abortions funded by the government.
Although abortion is legal in the U.S. because of what you, along with the general population, call “democracy,” there’s still a great divide on this specific issue; just because it’s legal does not mean there’s a lack of an opposing force, whether a minority on the subject or not.
Whether that question is “inane” or not, the argument is that it doesn’t even apply to this situation since government funds were not used to fund abortions internationally even before the overly restrictive Mexico City policy was placed. Just learning a bit of history helps to shatter weak arguments religious conservatives often make.
Publius • Feb 24, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Daniela,
“Why should my tax dollars be used toward something that I strongly oppose?â€Â You mean like War? Imposing the Death Penalty? Locking up drug addicts? Bailing out banks? The counterargument is that taxes are for the common good. If you don’t like it, contact your legislator. That question is so inane; if enough people object to publicly funded abortions, then the legislature will respond accordingly or risk losing re-election. Its called democracy.
Publius • Feb 25, 2009 at 5:23 am
Daniela,
“Why should my tax dollars be used toward something that I strongly oppose?” You mean like War? Imposing the Death Penalty? Locking up drug addicts? Bailing out banks? The counterargument is that taxes are for the common good. If you don’t like it, contact your legislator. That question is so inane; if enough people object to publicly funded abortions, then the legislature will respond accordingly or risk losing re-election. Its called democracy.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 5, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Monica:
Sometimes certain circumstances arise that may not be quite as simple as “if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex at all.” This is especially true when speaking about people living in third world countries that do not have the resources or access to information that we are fortunate to have.
Benjamin:
I agree that if a woman is able to carry the baby to term, she should most definitely do so but in order to do that, women need financial support to be healthy themselves throughout the pregnancy as well as to have a healthy baby. Besides financial constrains, women may also face difficult circumstances like rape or the social ostracism of having a child out of marriage that may make abortion a plausible option. However, I definitely agree that any circumstance outside of the “mother’s life argumentâ€Â is open to debate.
One Dove:
It is in part because of people that feel like yourself, that want to be “unencumbered by liberal lunacy,â€Â that I argue federal funds should not be used to aid the process of abortion. It is also in part because of cases to those that Wesley refers to, of women going to abortion clinics like they’re getting birth control, that I wouldn’t want the federal government to be a promoter of such behavior. In the column, I was speaking specifically of aid given internationally but I believe the same restrictions on federal grants for clinics should apply within the U.S. as well.
Also, the funds provided are used for valuable services that definitely go beyond supposed “population control agendas.â€Â I encourage you to visit USAID’s website http://www.usaid.gov and learn about their mission and all of the services they provide worldwide. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself agreeing with much of what they do.
Daniela Lopez • Feb 6, 2009 at 1:43 am
Monica:
Sometimes certain circumstances arise that may not be quite as simple as “if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex at all.” This is especially true when speaking about people living in third world countries that do not have the resources or access to information that we are fortunate to have.
Benjamin:
I agree that if a woman is able to carry the baby to term, she should most definitely do so but in order to do that, women need financial support to be healthy themselves throughout the pregnancy as well as to have a healthy baby. Besides financial constrains, women may also face difficult circumstances like rape or the social ostracism of having a child out of marriage that may make abortion a plausible option. However, I definitely agree that any circumstance outside of the “mother’s life argument” is open to debate.
One Dove:
It is in part because of people that feel like yourself, that want to be “unencumbered by liberal lunacy,” that I argue federal funds should not be used to aid the process of abortion. It is also in part because of cases to those that Wesley refers to, of women going to abortion clinics like they’re getting birth control, that I wouldn’t want the federal government to be a promoter of such behavior. In the column, I was speaking specifically of aid given internationally but I believe the same restrictions on federal grants for clinics should apply within the U.S. as well.
Also, the funds provided are used for valuable services that definitely go beyond supposed “population control agendas.” I encourage you to visit USAID’s website http://www.usaid.gov and learn about their mission and all of the services they provide worldwide. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself agreeing with much of what they do.
One Dove • Jan 29, 2009 at 6:44 am
It’s amazing how eager some people are to finance gender selection abortions (usually targeting girl babies) and population control agendas in the name of “reproductive health’ and “family planning” all around the world so other countries will “like” us and say “nice things” about us.
Ignorance must truly be bliss.
I would suggest that those who get all warm and tingly about sending their money around the world to slaughter the unborn should be free to do so, but let the rest of us spend our money as we see fit, unencumbered by liberal lunacy.
One Dove • Jan 29, 2009 at 1:44 pm
It’s amazing how eager some people are to finance gender selection abortions (usually targeting girl babies) and population control agendas in the name of “reproductive health’ and “family planning” all around the world so other countries will “like” us and say “nice things” about us.
Ignorance must truly be bliss.
I would suggest that those who get all warm and tingly about sending their money around the world to slaughter the unborn should be free to do so, but let the rest of us spend our money as we see fit, unencumbered by liberal lunacy.
Wesley Snipes • Jan 29, 2009 at 4:15 am
Abortions should be done early during the pregnancy if done at all. Abortions shouldn’t be free to anyone and should not come from the taxpayers. I know of too many cases where women go to the clinic for abortions like they would birth control.
To those who think abortions should be provided by the government, I challenge you to create an NGO with Nancy Pelosi to provide money for women who can’t afford abortions.
Wesley Snipes • Jan 28, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Abortions should be done early during the pregnancy if done at all. Abortions shouldn’t be free to anyone and should not come from the taxpayers. I know of too many cases where women go to the clinic for abortions like they would birth control.
To those who think abortions should be provided by the government, I challenge you to create an NGO with Nancy Pelosi to provide money for women who can’t afford abortions.
Benjamin Button • Jan 28, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Very well stated. The compromise is: have privately funded abortions and not ask tax -payers to support something a mojority of the population finds morally reprehensible.
I’m mildly pro-life but often wonder why, with so many couples looking to adopt, why abortion is necessary to proceed unimpeded. Carry the baby to term and give to a qualifying couple. Life is pretty damn sacred and shouldn’t just be sucked through a tube and discarded. Of course I buy the mother’s life argument, bu anything short of that should be subject to debate.
Benjamin Button • Jan 29, 2009 at 3:50 am
Very well stated. The compromise is: have privately funded abortions and not ask tax -payers to support something a mojority of the population finds morally reprehensible.
I’m mildly pro-life but often wonder why, with so many couples looking to adopt, why abortion is necessary to proceed unimpeded. Carry the baby to term and give to a qualifying couple. Life is pretty damn sacred and shouldn’t just be sucked through a tube and discarded. Of course I buy the mother’s life argument, bu anything short of that should be subject to debate.
Monica • Jan 28, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I myself am against abortion. I would ban clinics that assit with abortion. In my view women should only do abortions when their life or their unborn child are in danger. Why kill an unborn child when you can give it for adoption. Many families out there can’t have children at all. Many women get pregnant and don’t know what to do, and the only solution for them is doing an abortion. Well let me say this first of all don’t have sex, if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex at all. If you do get pregnant don’t consider an abortion consider an adoption.
Monica • Jan 28, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I myself am against abortion. I would ban clinics that assit with abortion. In my view women should only do abortions when their life or their unborn child are in danger. Why kill an unborn child when you can give it for adoption. Many families out there can’t have children at all. Many women get pregnant and don’t know what to do, and the only solution for them is doing an abortion. Well let me say this first of all don’t have sex, if you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sex at all. If you do get pregnant don’t consider an abortion consider an adoption.