Oh, Good: Obama to Help Procure More Abortions

Yep, nothing more important than getting the United States back on the side of butchering unborn children, because that is the loving and merciful thing to do, right?

Supporters of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) are confident that President-elect Barack Obama will reverse the Bush administration’s 2002 decision to stop the $40 million it received in U.S. funding. The policy was instated because of UNFPA’s support for China’s one-child policy, which includes coercive abortion practices.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D – N.Y.) said the funding will be approved by the Democratic majority Congress. Her comments came while speaking Wednesday at a press conference at the National Press Club where the 2008 U.N. report on world population was released.

“You know the president will have to do nothing,” said Maloney. “He will just have to let the will of Congress go through. One of the changes is that UNFPA will be funded,” CNSNews.com reports.

The Bush administration in 2002 had stopped funding the organization, citing the Kemp-Kasten Amendment which prohibits funds from being available to organizations or programs determined to be supporting or participating in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization programs.

In July of 2008, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte announced that for the sixth year in a row, the government had determined that “UNFPA provides support for and participates in the management of the Chinese government’s program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”

And I know that all of you, my fellow Americans, are delighted that in some small way we, too, will be involved in forced abortions and sterlizations in China. When we think about the poor, frightened woman being forced to have an abortion, we can take real pride in being Americans, can’t we?

Oh, the joys of a liberal, Democratic Administration – with such advances in the battle for equality for women and death for children, can federally funded abortion on demand be far behind?