Obama’s First Act: Taxpayer Money To Fund Abortions Of Black Babies
First three paragraphs:
The sickest irony amidst the euphoria of the inauguration of America’s first black President is that one of Obama’s very first actions in office will be to ensure that millions more black babies are aborted in third world countries, with American taxpayers picking up the tab.
President Obama’s first act of “change” will be to issue an executive order that will lift a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa.
Fresh from his complete disregard of Israel’s barbarian bombardment of Gaza, an onslaught that has killed around 400 children, Obama will ensure that potentially millions more never even get the chance of life in the first place.
prisonplanet
I personally love it when diseases are passed along because of unsupervised surgical procedures being performed.
Why do you hate America WC? Or were you not someone who said anyone who criticizes Bush/his admin hates America. I get you guys confused so easily.
Other side of the story. Sorry it doesn't have the same impact as "Obama kills black babies," WC.
Five Former USAID Officials Ask Obama for Leadership on Family Planning
WASHINGTON, Jan. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) today urged the new Obama administration to move quickly to restore U.S. leadership in global family planning.
The former directors issued a joint report, Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance, as Barack Obama takes office as president. The report argues that U.S. investment in family planning assistance programs overseas must more than double as soon as possible if global anti-poverty and development goals are to be achieved amidst the worldwide economic downturn.
In their report, the five development experts do ented "enormous pent-up and growing unmet need" for family planning information and services in developing countries, where governments are already struggling to provide enough jobs, education, health care and other services for their populations and poverty is rising.
At the same time, they said, interest and investment in family planning by the U.S. and other donor countries have stagnated or declined, "in part from the (mistaken) belief that rapid global population growth has halted; from diversion of resources to other needs... and from lack of understanding that family planning is not only essential for women's health but also a critical part of any successful economic development strategy."
The five co-authors successively directed the USAID Population and Reproductive Health Program across Republican and Democratic administrations from 1978 through 2006. They argued that this use of scarce resources provides substantial returns in both the short and the long term, contributing to the new administration's goal of reducing unintended pregnancies and saving millions of lives in the process.
The 22-page report recommends allocations to USAID of $1.2 billion in FY 2010 for family planning, up from $457 million in FY 2008, rising gradually to $1.5 billion in FY 2014. "This would represent an appropriate American contribution to international efforts to achieve the global consensus Millennium Development Goal target of universal access to reproductive health services, including family planning, by 2015," the report said.
USAID should use the funds to expand its training and existing successful programs, to equip more health care providers, to open programs in additional developing countries, to assure continued technical innovation and to boost funding for global organizations providing family planning, the report said. It also called for resuming U.S. funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, both of which had funding cut off under the Bush administration.
Authors of the report, their years of service as Directors of USAID's Office of Population, and their current work are: J. Joseph Speidel (1978-1983), now an adjunct professor at the University of California at San Francisco; Steven Sinding (1983-1986), now Senior Fellow at the Guttmacher Ins ute; Duff Gillespie (1986-1993), now a professor at Johns Hopkins University; Elizabeth Maguire (1993-1999), now President and CEO of Ipas; and Margaret Neuse (2000-2006), now an independent consultant.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/health-car...1012009-1.html
OMG this is beyond re ed.
Please clarify, WC. I thought you were for "Israel's barbarian bombardment of Gaza." That much, you and Obama can agree on, right?Fresh from his complete disregard of Israel’s barbarian bombardment of Gaza, an onslaught that has killed around 400 children...
Clinton lifted the same ban on funding.
Now WC is quoting prisonplanet?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ........Now WC is quoting prisonplanet?
That was deliciously tasty irony.
That policy has been rescinded/reinstated with every White House party change since Reagan in 1984.
Only out of spite.Now WC is quoting prisonplanet?
Now I question whether you know what spite means.
WC blew the save. You know he uses the internetz like a buffet line.
The last half of the article is the really interesting part.
There was an article from the Huffington Post (of all places) a few days ago that was critical about this stuff as well, but I can't find it now.
It raises population control explicitly, as a matter of public health and allocating scarce public resources in Africa.
Intriguingly, population control is represented as "saving millions of lives."
I can't do the math. Is this correct?
huh? I don't get it.
He doesn't either. He's totally ing clueless
I figured I would deal a double blow that apparently nobody sees. First of all, some of us complain about Propaganda Dan's (nbadan) posting of whole articles just to start discussions that are very often very poor sources factually to quote. I posted this link minutes after responding to FreeMason's thread "So I listented to the Alex Jones show for the first time last night..." My response was "Careful with the validity of his facts. He often gets things wrong. He's better than allot however." The fact is that the web site I linked is a website that belongs to Alex Jones. It seems nobody saw what I was doing.
Rush Limbaugh calls it "Demonstrating the absurd by being absurd."
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-24-2009 at 01:46 PM.
It was pointed out instantly and nobody thought it made sense. Your demonstration -- if we implausibly grant it was ever honestly undertaken to begin with -- was pathetically absurd. To claim your point was too subtle for us is a piling on of absurdities. As usual you represent a majority of one, WC.
Well, we can see you are blowing Alex Jones. Who else are you blowing in this thread?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
