Dems Call Cuts To Taxpayer-Funded Abortions 'Undemocratic'

By Anna Cameron

House Democrats voiced their fierce opposition to the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” Wednesday, a piece of legislation introduced by House Republicans that would cut off taxpayer-funded abortions.

“We have witnessed in the past few weeks an uprising in Egypt, in Tunisia, and all over the world, where people are [fighting] for democracy. We in the United states are the epitome of democracy, and yet what are we trying to do here?” questioned Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). “We are trying to take away the rights of women. That is the most undemocratic move that I can think of.”

The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” seeks to expand upon the Hyde amendment by also prohibiting indirect funding that has the potential to impact abortion services. The bill denies tax credits and subsidies to any individual or business that purchases insurance covering full reproductive health services, even when abortion is paid for with personal funds. In addition, it would change the definition of rape for purposes of exemption, as well as the exemption age for incest.

“The idea that we would decide, in a piece of legislation, that women who have insurance, who are working, who may never use the rider for an abortion, will not be able to pay for one, even with their own money, Slaughter said. “Obviously the intent there is to drive away the ability of insurance companies to provide those riders, [but] we will not stand for it.”

House Democrats chastised Republicans for pushing insignificant and unrelated legislation like H.R.3 rather than working to lower unemployment and boost the economy.

“Instead of working together in a bipartisan way to find jobs for Americans, …two of the first three bills [Republicans] have introduced have been bills designed to divide us,” said DeGetter. “[Republican bills] have been extreme measures that have been designed to take away citizen’s rights to get full health care coverage.”

Iran's human rights violations continue under Ahmadinejad

The American Enterprise Association held a discussion on Iranian society under the current Ahmadinejad presidency, focusing on its impact on civil liberties and political efficacy.

Tom Parker, executive director of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, said that the human rights situation in Iran “is not good,” and is “typical of many authoritarian regimes” where minorities are routinely discriminated against and denied basic rights. Targeted groups for whose safety the organization is “greatly worried” include Sunnis, Suffis, women, homosexual men, bloggers, and ethnic minorities like Kurds and Arabs. Parker said there are no Sunni mosques in Tehran because of the discrimination, and that many gay men have been executed on charges of male rape. Discriminations can occur through trumped-up charges or implementation of new laws designed to target certain groups, he said. Parker mentioned a public information film released by the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence that displays American politicians--one of whom is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) working in secret below the White House to undermine the Iranian government, whose vilified plans involved cooperation of “subversive” Iranian human rights groups. Parker highlighted the importance of the Iranian blogosphere in spreading accurate information and “getting a debate going” in Iran’s largely silent or nonobjective media.

Mohebat Ahdiyyih, senior Iran analyst at the Open Source Center, said that it really is “that bad” in Iran, and that President Ahmadinejad has upset the balance of various factions in the new country. He said conditions could change if another president were elected. However, Iran Nameh editor Hermoz Hekmat said that while there are elections in Iran, there are no political parties—thus rendering the elections “non-elections.” Because Iranian society has no political parties, no free press, and no influential non-governmental organizations, he continued, the elected president “has absolutely nothing to do” with the people’s vision for their government.