Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/22/2003 1:37:54 PM EDT
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update05.20.03.htm
Subject: No money for abortion providers! May 20, 2003 A sorry group of people who don't have the strength of character to curb their own appetite for spending other people's money (Congress) is about to spend $15 billion of our tax dollars to try to adjust the sexual appetites of men in Africa (I'm not making this up). That's the reality behind the $15 billion in AIDS relief for Africa that the politicians feel so good about and are now pushing through Congress. What else don't the big spenders want you to know about this "AIDS relief?" For starters, there's the sheer hypocrisy behind it. Read Congressman Ron Paul's statement condemning this multi-billion dollar social welfare scheme by going to http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst050503.htm Then, if you think "conservatives" and "right-to-life" go together, read about the devastating consequences for the unborn in this AIDS bill -- consequences our "heroes" on Capitol Hill are willing to ignore. To read an analysis by a highly respected Capitol Hill insider, go to http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/hr1298analysis.htm This legislation with its $15 billion price tag, popularly known as "AIDS assistance bill," will come back to the House for final approval tomorrow afternoon. If you are outraged on principle because you understand that there is absolutely no constitutional authority for Congress to take money from American citizens (taxes) to give to people overseas (foreign aid); ...or you believe the unborn have a right to life; ...or you believe that now, when America faces the biggest federal deficit in history and our own veterans' programs are being cut, we shouldn't be giving away $15 billion; ...or you believe sending billions of tax dollars overseas to "change male behavior" in Africa by, among other things, "promoting faithful-ness," condom distribution and earmarking funds for "abstinence-only programs" is a pointless exercise in feel-good social engineering; ...or for any of many other reasons you oppose this badly written bill, please, tell your representative to vote "NO" on H.R. 1298. To do that, go to http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=2250696&type=CO The vote will be held early afternoon tomorrow so send your message now. Kent Snyder The Liberty Committee
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:56:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:58:41 PM EDT
Memorandum to The Liberty Committee Subject: H.R. 1298 – US Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act Date: May 6, 2003 H.R. 1298 would authorize $3 billion a year (between 2004 and 2008) for foreign assistance programs for a total of $15 billion over five years. Conservatives have correctly perceived this as a massive pro-abortion Democratic program being advocated by Republicans, and have negotiated three provisions into the legislation: A requirement that one-third of the “prevention” funding be set aside for abstinence-based programs (section 402 (b) (3) ) – thereby leaving two-thirds of the program for the actual or implicit encouragement of AIDS-spreading promiscuity; A provision allowing (but not requiring) the administration to promulgate an executive order implementing the “Mexico City policy” with respect to AIDS funding (22 U.S.C. 104A (c) (1), inserted by section 301) – an executive order which will presumably be repealed when a Democrat is elected to the presidency; and A “conscience clause” allowing faith-based organizations to “opt out” of abortion, birth control, and other practices they regard as objectionable (section 301 (d) ) – an implicit recognition that non-faith-based organizations will freely use funding for these purposes. A conservative insider has characterized these compromises as putting “lipstick on a donkey.” This memorandum will not focus on most of the significant questions involving this legislation, including: Whether undertaking an international disease control strategy costing tens of billions of dollars comes within the permissible uses of congressional power under Article I, Section 8; Whether the two-thirds of the “prevention” funding not set aside for abstinence programs will, in fact, exacerbate the epidemic by telling people they can have sex safely; Whether the $15 billion in funding will cause millions of additional deaths by magnifying the voices of those organizations encouraging same-sex activities and sex out of wedlock; Whether the attack on AIDS, primarily in Africa, is the manner in which $15 billion could be used to save the greatest number of lives – or whether it represents a politicized choice which will save far fewer lives than other potential expenditures; Whether the legislation’s inability to craft a solution to the AIDS pandemic – and its reliance, instead, on the creation of a federal program to figure out a solution which Congress has been unable to devise – will meet with the same failure as the thousands of previous governmental programs which have already embodied this approach. All of these questions, while important, are probably less compelling to many conservatives than the possibility that the program will become the “cash cow” for the international abortion industry. So this memorandum will focus on the boost which this legislation will provide to international abortion providers. The legislation focuses on purposes such as “promoting the effective use of condoms” (section 101 (a) (4) ), organizations such as Planned Parenthood can be expected to compete vigorously for the $15 billion which is at stake. Conservatives had wanted to add statutory language to make the “Mexico City policy” applicable to the $15 billion authorized under this program. While far from perfect, the “Mexico City policy” would have prohibited funds from going to organizations which perform abortions. Abortion providers have frequently attempted to circumvent the “Mexico City policy” by creating sham organizations which are institutionally distinct, but which share facilities and personnel with abortionists. In spite of this porous nature, however – and notwithstanding the fact that liberal Democrats were salivating over the prospect of the new liberal largesse which this program will provide – House Republicans failed to use their negotiating leverage to secure the adoption of a statutory “Mexico City” clause. They also failed to secure a signed commitment from the administration that it would issue an executive order implementing the “Mexico City policy.” And, although Karl Rove has given an oral commitment on a conference call, the administration is expected to endorse some loopholes in connection with its expected executive order. For example, abortionists in small villages are expected to be allowed to receive funds from the $15 billion. That’s to good news. The bad news is that when the Republicans lose the White House, the floodgates will be opened and even the flawed executive order will be repealed. This program, therefore, will be turned into an enormous “cash cow” for the international abortion movement. When that happens, Republicans – who have failed to show resolve when they had the bargaining advantage – will no longer have the capacity to reverse the tragic course of events.
View Quote
Top Top