Repeal of Family Planning Amendments of 2004

[Peter]

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.

[The Dowager Mod]

The president needs to take a stand against this and use his veto

[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.

[Gabu]

Is anything happening here?  We have four days before this automatically becomes law.

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

Nobody has said that the federal government is going to do anything like that; however, it certainly is true that repealing that clause would allow that to happen.  Maybe this administration is not going to do that, but others in the future could, and personally, I agree with this Peter Bell that that is most certainly not a good thing.

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.

Nothing in that clause talks about what actually happens; all that clause does is declare that the federal government cannot stop doctors from informing their patients about their range of reproductive options.  Nothing is being forced on the patients.  It obviously would still be illegal for the doctor to suggest something that was illegal, so it's not like this clause is going to allow doctors to do something like killing babies after they're born, either.

Personally, I think that clause (b) is beneficial, as I don't feel that the federal government should be able to reject funding purely for political reasons.

[jokerman]

Personally, I think that clause (b) is beneficial, as I don't feel that the federal government should be able to reject funding purely for political reasons.

Political, eh?  Try moral.

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that clause (b) is beneficial, as I don't feel that the federal government should be able to reject funding purely for political reasons.

Political, eh?  Try moral.

You can call it what you want, but it's still the federal government interfering with the job of a private citizen who is not in any way breaking the law purely because you don't like what he's doing.  If you don't want doctors to be able to perform abortions, go make them illegal.

[Gabu]

Two days before this automatically becomes law.

[Peter]

Two days before this automatically becomes law.

The administration is fully aware of the status of this bill.

[Gabu]

Two days before this automatically becomes law.

The administration is fully aware of the status of this bill.

Just making sure.

[Alcon]

I'm just going to let this one pass. Although I have some reservations, I cannot bring myself to veto it, or sign it.

Sorry guys. Of course, it's nothing personal at all.

[Peter]

Seven days have passed and this is now law.