March 21st, 2010
06:19 PM ET

NOW 'incensed' over anti-abortion executive order

National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill issued a statement Sunday afternoon slamming President Obama, saying that he had broken his faith with women by agreeing to issue an executive order that prohibits federal funding for abortions.

"The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

"President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law - it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

soundoff (516 Responses)
  1. Jeremy

    NOW- "Because it is far more fair to kill human babies with the money of those who object to the practice than it is to ask women to pay for those procedures with their own money."

    March 22, 2010 at 6:48 am | Report abuse |
  2. Pencils

    Damn straight. It's good to hear someone actually tell the truth. Obama is supposedly pro-choice, but he has kicked us in the teeth. Again. Lots of people in this country are anti-choice...until an unwanted pregnancy. Even then they think their situation is special somehow. But they're not. You may not want your tax dollars paying for abortion, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for illegal overseas wars, but I don't get a choice on that. We can't pick and choose what our tax dollars pay for.

    March 22, 2010 at 6:51 am | Report abuse |
  3. Ted

    Most of a loaf is very much better than none. Obama did what he had to do to get this bill through. It has been the usual forces of 'no', those who would interfere with individual rights, those who would impose their religious beliefs, that are to be blamed.

    March 22, 2010 at 6:54 am | Report abuse |
  4. A Voice of Reason

    I have lost all respect for NOW. You have shown your self to be just a bunch of lunatic left wing ladies change your name to the L.L.L club. The president is still pro-choice. In politics you have to make compromises. Would you have rathered the bill die, just like it did over 8 years ago, and we have nothing. No health care reform, thus allowing the insurance companies to kick people off plans when they are most needed. Forcing millions of people to be uninsured because of preexisting conditions. Do you even realize what this fight has been about? Or are you so wrapped up in you own special interests that you cant see what this means to millions of other people. No one is making abortion illegal, And nothing has changed. We all wanted more from this bill. Many of us are upset about the lost of the public option. Be made at the Democratic's in congress that forced his hand. Dont go after the one that has supported your cause from the begging.

    March 22, 2010 at 6:55 am | Report abuse |
  5. Confused?

    Soooo, the government won't assist in abortion costs (except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother). Will they assist in the cost of contraception? Will they assist in the cost of women's health, as in yearly exams and mammograms? Will they assist in the cost of prenatal care and childbirth? What about assisting in the cost of a child medical expenses?

    Personally, I have medical insurance coverage with my employer. It costs me very dearly as I have a low income. According to what people are saying, my insurance is going to cost me even more now... okay. If it will help other people, then I'll come up with the money somehow. Maybe cable television is not as important as the lives of others.

    March 22, 2010 at 6:57 am | Report abuse |
  6. chancho

    I can twist the words around as well...from pro-choice to anti-life. I support the president and all anti-abortion democrats who stood for what is morally right. Pro-choice/anti-life advocates hold little regard for life by saying it is reproductive health issue when in most cases it has little to do with health and more to do with careless acts and selfish choices. Its all about me attitude is what makes you people ugly from the inside. Thank God I had the sense to marry someone who respects life. The good thing is your moral dilemnas will not be passed on to any of my children.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:01 am | Report abuse |
  7. AT

    Thanks to NOW for highlighting this and for refusing to compromise on women's rights.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:01 am | Report abuse |
  8. Prof

    As a pro-choice woman, I feel that you should have to pay for your ELECTIVE procedures anyway. Why have it in the bill in the first place If you do not help to pay for it, maybe there will be more responsibility taken on the part of the poor woman who had to make the choice. It is not really that expensive and it usually is not the cost that helps with the decision. It can also stay anonymous if you just pay and leave.

    On another note, I have NEVER heard any MALE or female politictian EVER give respect for the woman who has to make the decision. For most, it is the hardest they will ever have to make and that deserves some respect.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:06 am | Report abuse |
  9. linn stinson

    Come on ladies, its obvious his decision was made so he COULD pass his health care reform bill. Had the shoe been on the other foot, he would have been pro-choice. Its POLITICS and lets not read into it more than that. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...has been around for a long time . In my day abortions were illegal in the US at the time, but it was sitting in the Supreme Court. I terminated a pregnancy and had to go to Canada. I went with my future husband. Planned parenthood sold birth control pills for 50 cents in the 60"s back then and with so many birth control items out there, really there should not be any reason in this day and age for unwanted pregnancy (barring the obvious..rape etc) I do not like his decision, it is a woman's choice what she does with her body and funding should be provided. In the meantime, while the fight continues, lets keep educating the people that there are alternatives to prevent pregnancy and alternatives to pregnancy

    March 22, 2010 at 7:07 am | Report abuse |
  10. Mark

    1st, How can an executive order over rule the law of the land? This is a symbolic lie. Just like pay as you go. Then the first bill to come up after the "Pay as you go" is passed, the congress decides to not follow it.

    2nd. I am against abortion for my family, but I'm pro choice for others. As much as I disagree with abortion, I would never tall a woman to not have an abortion, because what she and her family do is none of my business. However, to force me through my taxes to pay for an abortion is ludicrous.

    The whole system makes me sick.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:08 am | Report abuse |
  11. taxpayer66

    I totally agree that tax dollars should not be used to provide abortions. If you want an abortion then pay for it yourself.!! Why should the whole country bear the burden of a womans poor choices? Have the mechanics of how a pregnancy occurs been forgotten? If you are unprepared to have a child then abstain from sex. If you make the poor choice and get pregnant use some of the money you were saving for the nail salon and pay for it yourself. Too many women have been sucking this country dry with their selfish acts by having fatherless children and adding them to the swelling public roles. Women have the power to stop all this yet choose to have sex and get pregnant expecting Uncle Sam to help them out with money if the decide to keep or terminate the child. Start taking responsibility and stop taking tax dollars!!!!

    March 22, 2010 at 7:08 am | Report abuse |
  12. Prof

    Plase stop calling it pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. It is a choice that is not made lightly.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:09 am | Report abuse |
  13. Thoroughbred

    The bill says is that no part of it will supersede existing laws in relation to abortion. How is that pro-abortion? Should it ban all abortions? Will that be enough? The intent of this bill is to reform health care. It is not the place to change abortion policy.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:10 am | Report abuse |
  14. ME

    Why should my taxes pay for an abortion? I think people have the right to choose. But not on the taxpayer's dime. I worked with a woman who had seven abortions. She also had two kids. Probably would have had all abortions if the government would have paid for them all. The world is a sick place.

    March 22, 2010 at 7:14 am | Report abuse |
  15. cindy

    So what about a woman (or child) who is raped and gets pregnant. This is not a wanted prenancy but now the person is forced to have this child. The mental torture this person is now saddled with along with dealing with the initial rape is too much. Or a woman who discovers that the child she is carrying is majorly ill – you have the ability to tell me my child won't be healthy but have now outlawed any way for me to terminate the pregnancy. Sorry – but my body – if I choose to have an abortion – I should have that right. NOBODY should be allowed to tell me what I can and can not do with my body. No – I do not agree abortion should be used as birth control in that every Friday night I can toss up my skirt and know I can do the deed without any worries. But when a crime is commited against my person – all bets are off.
    War is murder but the government is funding it. The governemnt is also PAYING FOR VIAGRA OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY!!! So lets think about that a second – the government is giving men the ability to have more sex but is not willing to help the woman pay for the "mistake" that could happen because of it. Little one sided if you ask me.
    Late term abortion is murder but honestly – within the first 6 -12 weeks a woman should have the right to decide.
    GOD LOVE THE MORNING AFTER PILL!!! Best thing the French ever did!!

    March 22, 2010 at 7:15 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35