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. jasontwombley

    who is this JERK ?? we, the usa taxpapes do NOT want the fedeal govt to fund abortions..the federal govt did NOT get these women pregnant !!!!!

    March 21, 2010 at 9:31 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Dan

    Obama did not limit freedom of choice; you can still choose to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy. All Obama did is ensure that the consequences of unprotected sex for which you are responsible are not the responsibility of the federal government.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:32 pm | Report abuse |
  3. C T

    With all the birth control options, why are there so many unwanted babies being conceived anyway?

    March 21, 2010 at 9:32 pm | Report abuse |
  4. farmerzson

    abortion is matter how you slice it. good for the President.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Jessica

    Thank you Terry O'neill!

    March 21, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Steve

    C'mon give us a break NOW. You want pro-choice? How about choosing to have the guy wear a condom? Or better about choosing abstinence?

    March 21, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Evan

    I totally agree in women's right tho choose and I have made that choice myself. But I definitely do not want to pay for others lack of responsibility to practice safe sex. On the other hand.... if we don't pay for abortions we will be paying for the countless children born just for a government pay check. The system rewards low income unwed women for having babies. Unfortunately it is used as a way to gain a pay check in this country. That, unfortunately is just the truth that no one EVER talks about. Maybe we should???

    March 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Renee

    I stopped sending donations to NOW years ago because they are too extreme. Everything has to be 100% their way. They do not believe in compromise. They are willing to hold up health care for tens of millions of Americans so that a small number of irresponsible women can have abortions. If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant (I'm sure pregnancy by rape and incest are covered). I am pro-choice, but it is not THAT big of a deal. There are other issues to consider. NOW needs to stop being so extreme. I'm glad Obama is not listening to them.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Doug

    Ha Ha Ha. Finally relaizing this guy will do anything to pass this worthless bill. He is a liar. I think it's funny how all the people who couldn't see through tis idiot are now coming to relaize the mistake they made. I just hope we can fix it in 2 years when he's gone.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Glenn

    It looks like this bill would not have passed without the President yielding on this issue. How about thinking of the needs of other sick Americans that desperately need help. It's not all about you and your right to abort babies.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Bill

    NOW, for all its self-righteous indignation, did NOT call on Dems to vote "NO" on the underlying bill. Apparently NOW does not really consider this a matter of principle, its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. If it is, as NOW claims, unacceptable to "negotiate health care on the backs of women", it should have repudiated BEFORE THE VOTE the result of said negotiation, which clearly was passage of the health care bill subject to the promised Executive Order. NOW cannot have its cake and eat it too.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Esron

    Seriously people, baby steps. You can't implement a full system that big immediately, it has to be done in stages that way one can limit the mess that may be made during the "renovations". It's a simple concept...

    March 21, 2010 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
  13. David

    I'm a pretty left-leaning liberal and...well, I have to disagree with the NOW. I'm Pro-Choice, believe in a woman's right to choose, but it may be sending the wrong message that abortions be taken care of by the federal government. Those of us who lean Pro-Choice do so knowing this is a PRIVATE decision to be made by a woman herself, with no governmental interference. So, why then, is it all right for the government to interfere when it comes down to paying for it? Nuh uh. Sorry. Not going to play that.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:51 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Treka Haviland

    Just because abortion is legal does not mean that federal funds should be used to pay for it. Abortion is always an elective procedure, except when the life or physical health of the mother is in danger. In those cases, federal funding is allowed. I would rather see women have to come up with their own money to pay for an elective abortion, if they choose to have one, than to see millions of Americans go without any health insurance coverage at all.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm | Report abuse |
  15. k

    shut the eff up...we can't win everything. passing healthcare is way more important. plus it will reduce unwanted pregnancies anyway.

    March 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm | 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