PDA

View Full Version : Obama set to reverse over 200 executive orders made by Bush


Randy J.
11-11-2008, 10:53 AM
Obama Likely To Reverse Bush Executive Orders On Family Planning, Stem Cell Research, Advisers Say

Article Date: 11 Nov 2008 - 4:00 PST

Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say that a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be reversed under the Obama administration includes bans on funding for international family planning programs and embryonic stem cell research, the Washington Post reports (Connolly/Smith, Washington Post, 11/9).

According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama plans to reverse the "Mexico City" policy, which restricts U.S. international foreign aid to family planning programs abroad that use their own funds to provide abortion services or lobby governments regarding abortion rights (Weisman, Wall Street Journal, 11/10). The order, which first was implemented under President Reagan, was repealed by President Clinton and then re-implemented by Bush in one of his first acts as president (Ohlemacher, AP/Google.com, 11/9). Last week, the Center for Reproductive Rights presented the Obama transition team with a 23-page memorandum calling for "bold policy change," including a repeal of the Mexico City policy (Zeleny, New York Times, 11/10). Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the organization also has been in communication with Obama's transition team and "expect[s] to see a real change."

The Post reports that Obama also has signaled that he intends to repeal Bush's "controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases" (Washington Post, 11/9). Currently, federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research can be used for embryonic stem cell lines created on or before Aug. 9, 2001, under a policy announced by President Bush on that date. Bush twice has vetoed bills that would have allowed federal funding for research using stem cells derived from human embryos originally created for fertility treatments and willingly donated by patients (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/21). Although abortion-rights opponents have supported the ban, many moderate Republicans back the research, "giving it the stamp of bipartisanship," the AP/Google.com reports (AP/Google.com, 11/9).

Dan Mendelson -- a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget -- said the Obama team is reviewing regulations that Bush imposed for "overtly political" reasons as part of what Democrats consider a partisan Republican agenda. However, Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter said that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized and that before Obama "makes any decision on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups." She added, "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet" (Washington Post, 11/9).

timmyruckus
11-11-2008, 11:14 AM
omg, but stem cell research is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
evil.....it only has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives and cure all sorts of horrible dieseases and and and and......that evil Obama, he is no good for the US. trying to save lives and what not.....pshaw

Bucho
11-11-2008, 12:07 PM
the Mexico City issue is huge for me. i still can't believe that aid would be denied to places that allowed abortions in their country. absolutely absurd.

Randy J.
11-11-2008, 12:13 PM
There is another one that involves the US selling land in Utah that is a National State Park with lots of animals and wilderness that Bush was going to sell to the oil companies. We have enough wilderness disappearing and dont need to get rid of more to increase oil company profits.

timmyruckus
11-11-2008, 02:17 PM
^ rediculous as well! as an avid outdoorsman and someone who has a genuine appreciation for the outdoors this is great news Obama is doing this.....

djnegator
11-12-2008, 07:55 AM
the Mexico City issue is huge for me. i still can't believe that aid would be denied to places that allowed abortions in their country. absolutely absurd.


It's huge to me as well. I think you need to reread that again and step away from pro life or pro population control.

Why do my tax dollars have to go to end up in the funding of a Family Planning clinic in another country???? I would be much more receptive to that money being placed in US programs.

The part that really chaps me, is some of the money goes to OVERSEAS LOBBYISTS to lobby foreign governments of of pro choice agendas. (Sidenote, I am prochoice, but that isn't the point). Don't we have enough problems caused by lobbyists in this country? Is there an actual purpose in funding lobbyists for foreign countries? Children in Kansas were only required to be tested for 4 diseases at birth by law entirely because of funding, yet we can fund some slick power player in paraguay to talk about the finer points of abortion?

I would say the priorities are off.

I am happy about the stem cell bannings and restrictions finally being lifted. I found it entirely ironic that because the right wingers did not want to destroy life, they opted to INCINERATE unused embryos rather than use them for testing.

Bucho
11-12-2008, 08:32 AM
i see where you're coming from and i understand it, but at the same time, if the money is already going over there for whatever reason (i think we should leave more of it here to help out Americans first, ultimately), we don't really have a choice as to where it's going unless that kind of restriction is placed on the money. i personally am glad the restriction will be taken away if a country simply needs aid no matter what, regardless of their stances on abortion. if a country needs aid and we're giving them money, as long as it's going to those who need it, i don't think we need restrictions like this on the aid.

Randy J.
11-12-2008, 08:51 AM
It's huge to me as well. I think you need to reread that again and step away from pro life or pro population control.

Why do my tax dollars have to go to end up in the funding of a Family Planning clinic in another country???? I would be much more receptive to that money being placed in US programs.

The part that really chaps me, is some of the money goes to OVERSEAS LOBBYISTS to lobby foreign governments of of pro choice agendas. (Sidenote, I am prochoice, but that isn't the point). Don't we have enough problems caused by lobbyists in this country? Is there an actual purpose in funding lobbyists for foreign countries? Children in Kansas were only required to be tested for 4 diseases at birth by law entirely because of funding, yet we can fund some slick power player in paraguay to talk about the finer points of abortion?

I would say the priorities are off.

I am happy about the stem cell bannings and restrictions finally being lifted. I found it entirely ironic that because the right wingers did not want to destroy life, they opted to INCINERATE unused embryos rather than use them for testing.


I agree that more, if not, all of that money should stay in the US.

However, if we do have these programs in place and we are helping out it is unfair of us to discriminate based on their abortion policies especially when abortion is legal here.

That kind of makes of hypocrites, does it not?