A slap in the face of a president who, last week, made it okay for us to fund abortions in other countries. He signed this w/o any press or cameras allowed in. Ashamed perhaps? He should be.
This one has been going back and forth for a few presidencies. If we are fortunate enough to elect a conservative next time around, he'll probably reverse it again.
The ones claiming the reversed ban will "[lift] the stranglehold on women's health across the globe" are falsely representing the issue, if you ask me. Surely they don't want to imply that availability to abortions solves women's health issues in poor nations? Do they not have more urgent health needs?
5 comments:
A slap in the face of a president who, last week, made it okay for us to fund abortions in other countries. He signed this w/o any press or cameras allowed in. Ashamed perhaps? He should be.
>made it okay for us to fund abortions in other countries
Isn't that just a little bit simplistic and out of context?
What is the full story?
Simplistic and out of contest? I don't think so. Here is the full story...
http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Ethics_rights/2009/01/obama-signs-order-ending-ban-on-abortion-funding-23/index.html
I got an email about this commercial this week and emailed NBC to ask them to air it. I don't guess the email campaign worked. :(
Say, if you don't like the Christianpost perspective, here is a link to the same story on Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50M3PQ20090123
This one has been going back and forth for a few presidencies. If we are fortunate enough to elect a conservative next time around, he'll probably reverse it again.
The ones claiming the reversed ban will "[lift] the stranglehold on women's health across the globe" are falsely representing the issue, if you ask me. Surely they don't want to imply that availability to abortions solves women's health issues in poor nations? Do they not have more urgent health needs?
Post a Comment