• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion

Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,922
Reaction score
58,445
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Associated Press: Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order Wednesday reaffirming long-standing restrictions on federal funding of abortion.
Click to expand...

Whether current law is sufficient to ban federal funding for abortions is up for debate. However this executive order either reinforces that or it gives additional protections sought by those who do not wish funding for this procedure to occur.

T
he order is part of an agreement with Democratic abortion opponents in the House that brought them over to Obama's side and pushed the health care bill over the top.

Obama has invited members of the Democrats' anti-abortion bloc, including its leader, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, to the private afternoon signing at the White House.
Click to expand...

No real comment on this, except I wonder if its being kept private out of concerns that Biden can't keep his mouth shut :mrgreen:
 
megaprogman said:
The Associated Press: Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion



Whether current law is sufficient to ban federal funding for abortions is up for debate. However this executive order either reinforces that or it gives additional protections sought by those who do not wish funding for this procedure to occur.

T

No real comment on this, except I wonder if its being kept private out of concerns that Biden can't keep his mouth shut :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

IF an executive order meant anything then why doesn't Obama make one for removing DADT, and many other things he promised to do and why does he even need congress and senate to do anything?
 
While I question the use of a signing statement for this rather inserting language into the bill concerning it, its good on Obama to stick to his promise.
 
Might as well sign it on a piece of toilet paper. That's what an executive order is worth in this instance.
 
Zyphlin said:
While I question the use of a signing statement for this rather inserting language into the bill concerning it, its good on Obama to stick to his promise.
Click to expand...

While it is nice to stick to promises, I do not like signing statements or executive orders which essentially legislate. That's not the Presidents job or duty, nor is he granted legislation authority.
 
jamesrage said:
IF an executive order meant anything then why doesn't Obama make one for removing DADT, and many other things he promised to do and why does he even need congress and senate to do anything?
Click to expand...

Boyfriend, who is a 16-year vet of the Navy and I have discussed this one a great deal. It is his thinking that while Obama COULD sign an executive order to remove DADT, that would not be the best way to proceed to gain buy-in from the troops. The military is already shifting its position on this and it would be better that the recommendation to remove DADT come from the military leadership.

One thing that I'm realizing about Obama is that he's patient. That might be frustrating for me, at times, but it's also a necessary skill in an executive.

p.s. It also appears that he keeps his promises.
 
Zyphlin said:
While I question the use of a signing statement for this rather inserting language into the bill concerning it, its good on Obama to stick to his promise.
Click to expand...

The bill already contained language concerning it, but the pro-life crowd wanted something stronger. Rather than send the bill through yet another amendment process and wasting a lot of time, they went with this.

The executive order basically says "This bill will continue to follow the existing legislation that bans federal subsidy or funding of abortions."
 
megaprogman said:
The Associated Press: Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion



Whether current law is sufficient to ban federal funding for abortions is up for debate. However this executive order either reinforces that or it gives additional protections sought by those who do not wish funding for this procedure to occur.

T

No real comment on this, except I wonder if its being kept private out of concerns that Biden can't keep his mouth shut :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

;) I heard it was done this way so as to keep to the idea the health care bill was been about health care, not abortion.

Zyphlin said:
While I question the use of a signing statement for this rather inserting language into the bill concerning it, its good on Obama to stick to his promise.
Click to expand...


Signing statement? Those are tacked on when to a bill when it is signed. Executive orders are not the same.
 
Gina said:
Signing statement? Those are tacked on when to a bill when it is signed. Executive orders are not the same.
Click to expand...

Yep, my bad, that was a case of brain and fingers not syncing up
 
Gina said:
;) I heard it was done this way so as to keep to the idea the health care bill was been about health care, not abortion.
Click to expand...

Cause the purity of the bill having to do with Health Care only really makes a ton of sense when you place it next to the fact College Loan legislation was tacted on.
 
jamesrage said:
IF an executive order meant anything then why doesn't Obama make one for removing DADT, and many other things he promised to do and why does he even need congress and senate to do anything?
Click to expand...

Because DADT is a law with hundreds of ramifications. You can't undo such complex laws with an executive order.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep, my bad, that was a case of brain and fingers not syncing up
Click to expand...

Ok...cool. :)

Zyphlin said:
Cause the purity of the bill having to do with Health Care only really makes a ton of sense when you place it next to the fact College Loan legislation was tacted on.
Click to expand...

LOL...you have a point there, but that didn't get the press nor is it the emotional issue that is abortion. Signing the EO in a big fan fare makes it something it was not.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yep, my bad, that was a case of brain and fingers not syncing up
Click to expand...

Hah, mine too, sortof. My brain just sort of automatically translated "signing statement" into the proper term and I didn't even notice.
 
The executive order carries the force of law at least until Congress or the courts override it...I see it as nothing more than political cover for Stupak.
 
Hatuey said:
Because DADT is a law with hundreds of ramifications. You can't undo such complex laws with an executive order.
Click to expand...

Since when did libs care about ramifications and how complex is it to say the military from now on could care less if a marine, soldier or whatever is gay? The military could simply end gang latrines and showers and have person to a room if there were any issues when gay men showering together and sharing rooms. It seems that you are just making excuses for Obama not upholding one of his campaign promises.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Since when did libs care about ramifications and how complex is it to say the military from now on could care less if a marine, soldier or whatever is gay?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to imply that conservatives care more about the day to day welfare of military personnel than liberals do? Please knock off the hyperpartisan b.s. Hatuey and I both gave you good reasons why DADT hasn't been ended by Exec order. Your response is a logical fallacy.
 
He signed it just hours after he figures out the bill would go back to the House... What'a MAROON!...

But I'm glad we're getting that transparency he promised!
 
Hatuey said:
Because DADT is a law with hundreds of ramifications. You can't undo such complex laws with an executive order.
Click to expand...

And you can fix something like federal funding of abortions with one???

If they were sincere about this they would have inserted the language in the bill. This is an executive orderdestined to be challenged and thrown out.

And for the record...I dont think it SHOULD be in the legislation...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Are you seriously trying to imply that conservatives care more about the day to day welfare of military personnel than liberals do?
Click to expand...

He may not... I DAMN sure do... the is a history is distrust and a fair bit of disdain from the military folk toward Democrats going back as far as I can remember which is Vietnam.

Look at some of the reactions from them when folks like Clinton and Obama use them for photo ops... look at the attitude of West Point when liberals show up..

They have, in the recent past been snubbed by both Clintons openly, and often. When their own Generals make requests, they are not honored, but hedged, put off, then their requests are never quite met. This is not an isolated incident and our military damn well knows it.

I don't blame them as they wind up the butt of their politicking in every instance I can remember..

I assure you though there is no love lost.
 
jamesrage said:
Since when did libs care about ramifications and how complex is it to say the military from now on could care less if a marine, soldier or whatever is gay?
Click to expand...

Since SCOTUS declared it is not so simple to change laws.

The military could simply end gang latrines and showers and have person to a room if there were any issues when gay men showering together and sharing rooms.
Click to expand...

No. It can't. The military has to run policy changes through congress and congress has to approve them.

It seems that you are just making excuses for Obama not upholding one of his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

It seems you don't know how laws in this country work.
 
Hatuey said:
Since SCOTUS declared it is not so simple to change laws.
Click to expand...


With this statement alone you confirm what a hoax the whole Stupak ruse was....good one demo's....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
With this statement alone you confirm what a hoax the whole Stupak ruse was....good one demo's....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Stupak was a self agrandizing whore. He sold his 'morals' down the river for a few baubles.
 
ConservaBill said:
He may not... I DAMN sure do... the is a history is distrust and a fair bit of disdain from the military folk toward Democrats going back as far as I can remember which is Vietnam.

Look at some of the reactions from them when folks like Clinton and Obama use them for photo ops... look at the attitude of West Point when liberals show up..

They have, in the recent past been snubbed by both Clintons openly, and often. When their own Generals make requests, they are not honored, but hedged, put off, then their requests are never quite met. This is not an isolated incident and our military damn well knows it.

I don't blame them as they wind up the butt of their politicking in every instance I can remember..

I assure you though there is no love lost.
Click to expand...

Its not so simple tho...

I think MOST vets would agree that while soldiers are on active duty and/or in conflict situations, the republicans are far more likely to be supportive of the troops. However...when it comes to long term benefits like social spending for veterans democrats are far more likely to offer better social services packages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom