is likely to issue, several of which will apparently reverse long-standing policies that outgoing President Bush initiated. He mentioned four of these, specifically, and another advisor mentioned another.
Among the first orders to be reversed may be two that Bush signed shortly
after taking office in 2001. One of those barred the use of U.S. funds by family
planning groups overseas that provide abortion counseling.
Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama's advisory committee for women's health,
said the president-elect also plans on reversing a policy that linked assistance
for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers
emphasize monogamy and abstinence from sex over condom use.
Another is the limit on federal funding for embryonic stem- cell research,
a restriction that some scientists say hampers study to combat diseases such as
Parkinson's.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile
lands in Utah that they're going to try to do right as they -- walking out the
door. I think that's a mistake,'' Podesta said.
On climate change and pollution, Obama previously has stated his opposition to
the administration's action that blocked California from regulating carbon
dioxide emissions from vehicles
Apart from the disrepsect for human life in general and children in particular that Obama's positions on abortion represent, there are other questions that arise:
1) Why should overseas family planning groups be receiving US taxpayer funding at all? Or any family planning groups?
2) Who benefits from restrictions on oil and gas drilling in the US? It is certainly not the companies that do it. and it may not be the environment. Might it be foreign suppliers?
3) Allowing California to impose carbon-dioxide emissions will make it harder on all autompbile manufacturers since automakers must in general design their vehicles for the entire country to meet the toughest state standards. This, at the very time when the new administration is proposing an expensive bailout for the US auto industry. Who benefits? I'm not sure I have a good answer for either one.
+++++
San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Duffy, at a rally outside the Oakland Temple earlier today,
November 10:
"The time has come to take it out there to the people who voted for this awful
thing, [Prop. 8]" said San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty. "The Mormon church
has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their
beliefs "... This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten
some lessons."
Am I reading this correctly as a threat to teach the Mormons a lesson? Religious liberty only exists when the GBLT community is willing to tolerate it? So when the Mormons express concern about gay marriage advocates eventually threatening their freedom of religion, it's a lie?
I really don't have the time to waste searching for words to properly express how I feel about this speech. So I'll just say they're rather the opposite of approving and leave it at that.
No comments:
Post a Comment