From: parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Pro-choice loses another round.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 05:05:00 GMT
Keywords: pro-choice

jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:

[some stuff I didn't totally follow, about funding for institutions that
provide information about abortion]

[>Government follows the choice of the people...]
>But this cannot apply to advocates of tax-funded abortion counseling,
>because they do so _in the name_ of pro-choice.

>Nor can it apply to advocates of tax funding for abortion, for the
>same reason.
 
>How do these advocates rationalize this contradiction?
 
Tax money pays for many things.  We as individuals do not always agree with
what is begin funded.  That is part of a democratic government.  Not everyone
will agree on what should be done.  Government has a certain responsibility
to make the minority comply with the reasonable rules of the majority--which
the majority must follow as well, of course.  (Criminal laws come to mind.)

>On this day, United States President Bill Clinker has terminated the
>so-called ``gag rule'', asserting that this was to increase personal
>freedom.

Do you remember the meaning of the "gag rule"?  Any institution that recieves
federal funding is forbidden to even *mention* abortion or to provide
information--or even *refer* women to a (private) institution where they
*could* recieve information--on abortion.  Even if the woman *asks* about
abortion, they have to say "This institution does not consider that to be
a valid option." no matter how much she insists, and regardless of the fact
that abortion was completely legal at the time.  It's really rediculous.
Many public institutions *depend* on federal funding.  Many poorer people
depend on public (health) institutions.  The "gag rule" was a blatant attempt
to keep women from having the infomation with which to make a *major*
decision with serious reprecussions on her future.

>It used to be that you had a choice on whether to support abortion
>counseling.  Now, unless you have managed to remain free of the
>clutches of the United States Government, you no longer have that
>choice.  This means that part of your toil is applied, by way of
>taxation, in support of abortion counseling, whether or not you would
>so choose on your own.

>What could Clinker have meant by ``personal freedom'', in view of
>the foregoing?

It *used* to be a woman seeking information about abortion had a much harder
time getting such information.  This makes it harder for her to decide what
her choice *is*, and this makes it harder for her to *assert* her choice.
*Now* that is not the case.  *That* is what Clinton means by "improving
personal freedom".

>Notice that the perspective from which these questions are asked is
>profoundly pro-choice.  Please do not respond if you do not understand
>this.

I suppose you mean that you are "pro" the "choice" of what your tax money
pays for.  I hate to break your bubble but *no one* has a direct choice of
what their tax money goes for.  The choice you have is how you vote.  Clinton
was elected.  That means (roughly) that more people agree with his position
than agree with the position of the other candidates.

>        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.

A good rule, when only two people are involved, and that being directly.
In the case of millions of people total agreement is impossible, and the
only "fair" way to go is by majority rule.

>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar

-Rob
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal