What a difference a month makes.
After being absolutely apoplectic since the day Obama announced that Rick Warren would recite a prayer at the inaugural, I am finally putting my own cease fire in place. Now, don't get me wrong - my level of irritation, outrage and disapointment are still at an all time high. I have written enough comments, sent out a trillion emails and have done everything I could to express my outrage, but regardless, a bigot will still be speaking at the inaugural. But it is time for me to move on.
One of the things that I do feel good about is that I enlightened a number of people who have read Warren's book "A Purpose Driven Life" who were actually shocked at the level of Warren's bigotry once they read the numerous articles and watched the You Tube videos I sent them. So perhaps the bloom is off the rose to a certain degree.
But Warren was not the biggest issue for me - it was Obama. I just never thought in a million years that he would appoint someone like Warren - and I am so offended that a Democratic President-elect would apppoint someone like Warren. After decades of supporting civil rights and after losing an entire region of the country becuase of its support for civil rights, I never thought I would see the day when a democratic party president-elect would or could do such a thing - and that the base of the party would stand by and let it happen.
So, I am moving on - still disapointed in a man who chooses to asociate himself with a bigot. But Obama realy needs to watch where he is going. It is great to try to bring everyone together - but Obama's key weakness may be that he overestimates his ability to do just that. And the whole controversy surrounding Rick Warren should be, hopefully, a lessen learned.
Bringing people together on issues they agree on is easy - but the tough part is taking on the culture war issues, which are still there, and that are the most polarizing issues today that they were back in the 1980's. And on issues like abortion, gay rights, and school prayer, I am not going to back down. And these issues are going to come up again soon, and the flashpoint will be a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court.
An opening on the Supreme Court is going to be Obama's biggest challenge in a political sense because right-to-privacy issues will be the most polarizing issues during any confirmation hearing. And the political fallout that could ocurr based on who Obama nominates could have long-lasting impact on the remainder of Obama's term(s).
And we could get a glimps on the fallout on the first day of Obama's new administration, when, as expected, Obama repeals the ban on the Global Gag Rule, put in place on the first day of the Bush Administration, which bans all federal funds from being spent on abortion services internationally. But reparling the Global Gag Rule is simply insufficient - the real culprit that needs to be overturned is the Helms Ammendment, passed in 1973:
The ban on foreign aid for abortion is based on the government's interpretation of the Helms Amendment, adopted in 1973. The Helms Amendment states "No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."
The language of the ban is as peculiar as its implementation. One might wonder, under what circumstances is abortion used as a "method of family planning?" Abortion certainly isn't family planning when a pregnancy threatens a woman's physical or mental health or where the woman is a victim of sexual violence. Under Helms, could USAID have a role in ensuring women's access to safe, legal abortion under these circumstances?
In countries where abortion is legal under a broad set of conditions, the ban has meant that no U.S. assistance can help the government make services safer (for example, through training or equipment), or indeed to make safe abortion care available at all. In Nepal, where the government is working to implement the 2002 abortion law, USAID-funded training facilities and clinics dedicated to treating complications of unsafe abortion may not be used for safe abortion care. The government instead had to build new facilities or compromise quality of care by using less appropriate facilities.
U.S. administrations have applied the Helms language to effectively prohibit any use of foreign assistance funds for safe abortion care, but also to prevent dissemination of information about abortion or the purchase of equipment to treat abortion complications. The prohibitions are applied equally to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foreign governments and multi-lateral organizations (by contrast, the global gag rule only applies to NGOs and dictates what they do with their own, non-USAID funding, while Helms applies only to US funding).
This includes the purchase and distribution of manual vacuum aspiration instruments, life-saving equipment that can be used to both provide safe induced abortion as well as to treat complications from unsafe abortion and miscarriage, particularly in low-resource settings. Though USAID funds train providers to treat complications from unsafe abortion, funding for the equipment to put this training into practice must be acquired elsewhere.
The Helms Amendment has even led to the control of information about the scientific, public health, and human rights aspects of abortion - far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the language of the law. USAID-funded journals and databases have been censored systematically and through outlandish intrusions. In April 2008, administrators of the U.S.-funded Popline database made the word abortion an unsearchable stop word, all because of a phone conversation over USAID's concerns that Popline may be violating the abortion ban by including what they thought were abortion advocacy materials. The items in question were articles in A: the abortion magazine, published by Ipas, in an issue on the growing recognition of the linkages between abortion and human rights. Abortion was shortly reinstated as a search term but the offending articles remain banned from the "world's largest bibliographic database" on reproductive health literature.
It does not have to be this way. A 1994 policy interpretation by USAID stated that the Helms Amendment permits funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the woman. But USAID has yet to fund any programs or services that meet these conditions. Annual foreign aid appropriations bills specify that the Helms Amendment should not prohibit providing information or counseling about all pregnancy options, and this also has never been implemented - indeed the global gag rule has undermined this condition.
Only Congress can repeal the abortion ban, although President-elect Obama certainly has signaled his opposition to bans on public funds for safe abortion care. The wording of the Helms Amendment does give the next president the opportunity to request USAID to issue guidance on what activities are permissible under the Helms Amendment. Such activities would include but are not limited to: creating awareness of unsafe abortion as a public health problem, equipping providers with appropriate technology, training providers to provide legal abortion under certain circumstances and providing abortion information, counseling, and referrals.
Millions of women have died of unsafe abortions in the 35 years since the Helms Amendment was enacted, and tens of millions more have suffered injuries and disabilities due to complications. The end of the Global Gag Rule will begin a new era of U.S. foreign policy that will improve women's health and lives. But the Helms Amendment will remain a major impediment to efforts by governments, advocates and organizations to ensure that the world's poorest do not have to face unsafe abortion. Even with Helms in place, through new and clarifying guidance, the administration can lessen its harm, comply with U.S. international commitments, and save lives of the world's poorest women.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/...
We'll see if the Obama Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress take on the issue of the Helm's Ammendment, and how much opposition arises when trying to repeal it.
So, no more diaries and comments on Rick Warren. I plan on watching the inaugural but also plan on muting Rev. Rick when it comes time for him to speak. For those of you who are actually attending the inaugural and feel as I do about Rick Warren, do me one favor - rather than yelling, screaming, etc., simply turn your back to him while he recites his pray. The media is going to be watching the crowd reaction quite cloesly and a visual of those turning their backs on Warren will be seen by hundreds of millions of people around the globe and will have far greater impact than making a lot of noise.
And to all of you who are huge Obama's supporters, wallow in your victory. You worked hard to get Obama elected, as I did, and you deserve the opportunity to enjoy every minute. But as time moves on, don't be afraid to voice your opinions when you disgree with Obama. Obama is going to be wrong - he told us that during the campaign and stated those very words to the crowd in Baltimore on Saturday. And he also told us to tell him when he is wrong. Republicans never told Bush he was wrong - nor did the Dems on a lot of issues for that matter. It is important that we do not make the same mistakes.
So speak up...........
Peace.