President Barack Obama. It has a nice ring to it. We're on a campus that is generally very excited and content concerning this new presidency. Though racism is not dead, we have overcome an incredible obstacle in our American journey.
If you will allow me, I'd like to comment a bit on the new president, as well as one major thing he promised to deliver on. I am thrilled with the president's promise of transparency; it's something we need badly to restore confidence.
He did an interview with an Arab television network, and I was truly encouraged by what I saw. Obama understands that the language used in dialogue with the Middle East matters as well as the need for us to convince the Muslim world that we are not their enemies.
As far as the stimulus bill and the major shift in government roles, I will abstain from comment for now. Because someone comments on every move he makes, I will not try to touch on every step he's taken. Amidst the daily news of new appointees and policy ideas that are so difficult to keep up with, we have a responsibility to know what policies are being enacted and where we fit in as citizens.
On Jan. 23, his third day in office, and the day after the 36th "Roe v. Wade" anniversary, the president reversed the "Mexico City Policy." If you do not know what this is, I'm not surprised - I did not either until recently.
It is a policy that says we will not use federal tax money (everyone's money) to fund international family planning groups that actively promote or perform abortions.
So with his signature on the executive order to reverse this policy, we are all now paying for abortions and abortion promotion.
Now, even if you think abortion is fine, the notion that we all should pay for it (that includes people who rightfully believe it to be the ending of a human life) is deeply, deeply offensive. But that is done, signed and delivered. We should be collectively outraged that the new president would think such a policy necessary or permissible.
Polls show that around 70 percent of Americans do not support public funding of abortion. Now let me turn to an infamous campaign promise he made. He said, when giving a speech to Planned Parenthood, "Well the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, that's the first thing I'd do." And the crowd went wild with applause.
As I said, we have a responsibility to know what policy is in the works and our roles as citizens. One, he didn't keep his promise, for which I am thankful, but I am fearful he will sign it later down the line.
I doubt many people know what this is. After all, polls show it is only supported by 9 percent of the American population, so Obama and the congressional Democrats have no reason to desire that people know what the bill would actually do.
This bill, the Freedom of Choice Act, is an attempt to end the debate over abortion; it is an attempt to close minds. Let me summarize its effects. Any current laws requiring minors to simply notify one parent before obtaining an abortion would be nullified. Currently only six states do not have a law of this kind.
Any laws requiring waiting periods before obtaining an abortion would be nullified. Perhaps the most grotesque aspect of FOCA is that is would reverse the partial-birth abortion ban. In case you don't already have nightmares, here is what occurs during that procedure.
Leave a comment 3 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Well done once again, Mark. You continue to bring a sensible, objective, and factual voice to this key issue. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and any attempt to fund this grotesque with public money is simply outrageous. We cannot allow our government to foot the bill for murder.
Reply to this Top
My understanding is that partial-birth abortions are only performed when the health of the mother is at risk. Third trimester abortions are generally illegal. Also, it won't force doctors to perform an abortion if they are against it, it will just require those doctors to provide a referral to someone who will perform the procedure. I think the bill is a good thing, the aim is to stop discrimination against women who seek an abortion. However, if you think a fertilized egg has as much value as a person or child, then I can't argue with you.
Reply to this Top
The Freedom of Choice Act allows doctors to refuse to care for patients, and refuse to write patients referrals, if the doctor has any moral objections. Furthermore, the doctor can not be punished for denying care to the patient. The act is completely immoral and quite stupid. If a doctor doesn't want to perform medicine then that doctor should change jobs. Should a doctor who is a Jehovah’s Witness be able refuses to provide a blood transfusion to patient in need? Should a Scientologist doctor be able to refuse writing a referral to send a bipolar patient to a psychologist? FOCA would allow both and prevent the punishment of such doctors for their gross negligence.
Reply to this Top