Repeal of Family Planning Amendments of 2004

[Sam Spade]

Considering 24 hours has passed without any debate on this bill (or like there was ever any debate in the first place), I would like to motion to bring this thing to a vote.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

I see no reason to continue to give money to the UN over anything, much less crap like this. 

[Sam Spade]

Well, that's where we're going to have to disagree.  

Fair enough to me.

I might also note to the PPT that this has enough votes to pass at present, just in case he's forgotten. 

[Sam Spade]

For all those who are abstaining or voting nay on this legislation, I might suggest they read Stephen Moore's article from the Cato Institute detailing the reasons why we shouldn't fund UNFPA.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.html

Specifically, I urge all those to note the UNFPA's fanatical support for the one-family, one-child policy of China, the most horrific population control program of this preceding century, imo.

It is no wonder then, that a person like migrendel proposed this legislation, being the noted supporter of infanticide that he was.

[Sam Spade]

For all those who are abstaining or voting nay on this legislation, I might suggest they read Stephen Moore's article from the Cato Institute detailing the reasons why we shouldn't fund UNFPA.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.htm

Specifically, I urge all those to note the UNFPA's fanatical support for the one-family, one-child policy of China, the most horrific population control program of this preceding century, imo.

It is no wonder then, that a person like migrendel proposed this legislation, being the noted supporter of infanticide that he was.

Do you have any corroborating articles for this one?  I'm not discarding it outright, but I noted the great abundance of harsh descriptive language, which, to me, pretty much always lessens my impression of an article that's intended to inform.  In additition to that, the descriptive language seems to take the place of hard evidence, as I found nothing in the article that actually gives weight to its claims, which is, well, a further barrier for the article's credibility.

If you can give me an article that calmly presents evidence with an objective tone, I'd be more than happy to listen.

PS: Your link doesn't work; it should be "html", not "htm".

The fact is that if UNFPA is giving money to China regularly, the money is directly being used to support the one-family, one-child policy.

There are plenty of articles out there that show this is the case:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25148.htm
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/mos_14abortionchina.html

This is the original article that describes the reasons why the US pulled out of UNFPA.  The forced sterilization policy of China is the main reason.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/13677.htm

[Sam Spade]

Can we present this to the President please?

[Sam Spade]

Frankly, I don't see how a connection between UNFPA and China has not been proven, since it's on the public record everywhere.  I have more links where those came from. 

This has more to do with their support of China's one-couple, one-child policy and abortion in general.  It also has to do with forced sterilization and infanticide subsidized and essentially promoted by these types of organizations through their support of China's stringent population control laws.

If anything, Gabu's links are quite vague and are the ones up for "interpretation".

Nonetheless, if the President decides to veto it, I will call for a veto override.

[Sam Spade]

I'd also like to point out that clause (b) of what you are repealing reads as follows:

"no organization receiving federal funding for family planning services domestically or abroad shall be prohibited from mentioning the full range of reproductive options, including abortion, to their clientele on pain of federal support."

Effectively what the Senate is doing is repealing a clause in federal law that stops the federal government from attacking the professional independence and integrity of Doctors and other medical professionals by essentially blackmailing them with a threat of repealing their federal funding based on the ideological whims of the Senate.

This just isn't right because Doctors ought to be able to give the medical advice they feel is in the best interests of their patient rather than the advice they feel is in the best interest of their funding.

Who said the federal government was doing anything like that or going do anything like that?

Rather, I see that as a backhanded way of making sure that abortion is high on the methods of birth control utilized, as opposed to preventative measures

This also opens the door through vagueness in the clause towards utilizing more extreme birth control methods in this country, like sterilization or infanticide, as are being presently used in certain places around the world.