Not All of Obama’s Actions are Popular

In a set of polling data released yesterday, Gallup noted that while most of the actions taken by President Obama have been relatively popular along with his job approval rating. There are two specific action he has taken that are most of the country disapproves of. These two would be the executive order closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and the lifting of the Mexico City Policy (which clears the way for federal funding to go to overseas family planning organizations that advocate and provide abortions). Accroding to the Gallup Poll (FYI: use of the Gallup logo here does not imply that the organization approves of or sponsored this blog) the closing of Guantanamo Bay has only a 44% approval (50% disapproval) and the repeal of the Mexico City policy has only a 35% approval (58% disapprove).

I have written here earlier about the implications of closing GITMO and about the repeal of the Mexico City policy. This goes to show that the liberal agenda that Obama began his presidency with is not as popular as the media might point out. Look as far as Guantanamo goes, the popularity of that action of what the media deemed was mistreatment (when most of the prisoners there live better than some of the citizens in our own country) ends when the question is asked where to send these terrorists. The NIMBY effect takes a hold on the American collective … Not In My Backyard. And in a time when the American economy is hurting, allowing funding for organizations that kill babies is seen as a waste of government money. But Democrats seem to be okay with that as I will point out later as I talk about the “stimulus” package. Obama won’t always do whats popular for the electorate … Pres. Bush proved that fact … but its about doing what is right for the country … and again Pres. Bush proved that as well … spending money on things that aren’t important and endangering our country by closing down a terrorist prison were the wrong things to do.

Obama to reverse Mexico City Policy

It is the third full day of the Obama Presidency and already abortion policy is set to change. President Barack Obama is set to sign an executive order reversing what is known as the Mexico City policy. The policy (first put in place in 1984 under Ronald Reagan) requires that all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to not advocate or perform abortions abroad. Essentially this policy was set in place to end tax payer funded abortions in other countries (I am still looking up if tax payer money goes to abortion services in America itself or if that is affected by the Mexico City policy). The policy was in place from 1984 to 1993 (rescinded by Pres. Clinton) reinstated in 2001 under Pres. Bush and now reversed again under Obama.

 

Now I know that wikipedia isn’t the be all end all of internet resources … but here is what wiki says about the scope of the Mexico City policy:

The policy requires non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds” that they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”. The policy has exceptions for abortions done in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.

Here is what I think about this policy. Well first let me discuss my opinion in the whole abortion debate. The case of Roe v. Wade can’t simply just be revisited. The way that the case was decided as a right to privacy case. It was a definition of the 14th and to a lesser extent the 9th amendment. Since the court at the time decided that even the 9th Amendment aplied to a women’s ability to terminate her pregnancy (placing in the Bill of Rights). However, the court did say that right essentially ends if the fetus is viable outside of the womb (around 7 months or so) even under artificial means. This means that those courts that have challenged partial birth abortion laws (or late term abortion laws) are actually violating what was decided in Roe. So basically my opinion on this is that this case is pretty hard to revisit. What should be done is to validate the … well … validity of the late term and partial birth abortion laws. There should also be less of what appears to be radicalism on the pro-life side. Let the pro-choice folks bang their drums and shout and whatnot … but be dignified and all the rest … that will begin to win the minds of the people. Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term it will. Anyway … look I’m not having an abortion anytime soon and I would certainly  hope to convince my wife or significant other to not have one either. This is a personal decision … I think it would be the wrong decision because I believe that not only life but choice begins at conception. You have the choice of getting pregnant or not in most cases.

Anyway … I don’t think that taxpayers like myself should pay for other people to have abortions. I don’t agree with abortion for sure … so why should I pay for say my neighbors abortion (thats a super simplification of this but just go with me here). Whoever thinks thats reasonable is ridiculous. If this is a choice … then say I chose to get an eye lift or lasik surgery (thats a choice right) … then should taxpayers pay for it? NO. And while perhaps abortion and those types of procedures aren’t exactly the same … and I know they aren’t … the premise in my belief is much the same.