Repeal of Family Planning Amendments of 2004

[Akno21]

It's not as if this is any huge sum of money. 34 million dollars won't do much in terms of deficit cutting. Being the world's superpower, we have a responsibility to provide the services section A entails.

At least do not eliminate this under the false facade of deficit cutting, it is clearly a pro-life measure.

Why exactly do we have the "responsibility" to use American tax dollars to kill babies overseas?

It's contraceptive services Jake, not free abortions.

We already kill babies overseas, go to Iraq. (I don't blame the military for that, most of the time it can't be helped)

[PBrunsel]

Well I applaud this momentous decision. I'm glad I was a part of repealing the Child Butchery Amendments of 2004 [that's what I call them anyway.]

[Akno21]

Don't blame me; I voted against it.

You have a spine on this, however...

[PBrunsel]

Don't blame me; I voted against it.

You have a spine on this, however...

Akno are you stating that my Conservative views on abortion that made me vote for this have caused me to lack courage. If I was less of gentleman I would be insulted by this.

[Gabu]

Well I applaud this momentous decision. I'm glad I was a part of repealing the Child Butchery Amendments of 2004 [that's what I call them anyway.]

Um, the UNFPA, according to Wikipedia, helps people to do the following things:

    * Plan their families and avoid unwanted pregnancies
    * Undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely
    * Avoid sexually transmitted infections
    * Combat violence against women
    * Promote the equality of women

I've looked through this entire article on the UNFPA and have found exactly nothing claiming that they do anything with regards to abortion.

[Akno21]

Don't blame me; I voted against it.

You have a spine on this, however...

Akno are you stating that my Conservative views on abortion that made me vote for this have caused me to lack courage. If I was less of gentleman I would be insulted by this.

No, I'm hoping certain moderates don't go overboard trying to raise their approval ratings.

[Sam Spade]

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

[Beet]

Ah how far we have fallen. All the supposed great legislation of the first few sessions have now been wiped out. I suppose it was inevitable however, given the makeup of the forum.

[King]

There have been too many contradicting statements in this debate.  I change my vote to Abstain out of confusion.

[Gabu]

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

Well, that's where we're going to have to disagree.   Given that the projected savings from this bill amount to approximately 0.005% of our deficit, and considering that I feel that the goals of the UNFPA, if realized, will eventually reduce the need for foreign aid, I consider it a worthwhile expenditure.

[jokerman]

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. 

[Gabu]

Oh, right, whoops, I forgot that I was PPT again and that I have to take over now.

This legislation now has enough votes to pass; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[12th Doctor]

Aye

[Colin]

Abstain

[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.

[Gabu]

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".

[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?

[Gabu]

With eight votes in favor to one against, and with one abstaining, this bill has passed.

I hereby present it to the president for his signature.

[Jake]

So...

[jokerman]

I am, myself, pro-life, but I do not feel that it is appropriate to allow personal views to get involved with what I believe is entirely legal. Like it or not, abortion is illegal under Atlasian laws. Thus, I do not really find restricting knowledge of something that - while you could argue is morally deplorable - is regarded as legal.

Senator Gabu has presented an excellent argument here, one which I cannot see too significant of a counter-argument for. Dislike of the U.N. aside, I have seen little proof that this minute amount of money relative to the overall budget is misused or misappropriated enough to be worth getting rid of.

I do, however, encourage more research to be made into the connection between this and China. If proved, this is absolutely unacceptable. I encourage the Senate to seek to create some sort of investigative body to assure that the UNFPA is not overstepping its bounds.

Is this a veto?

[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.

[jokerman]

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.

I'm all in support of a veto overide is Alcon vetos it.

[MasterJedi]

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.

I'm all in support of a veto overide is Alcon vetos it.

So am I, though I hope Alcon decides to sign this instead of going that route.