Another policy backflip from the coalition:

http://news.smh.com.au/family-planning-funding-ban-faces-review/20080318-207g.html

A Howard government ban on Australian aid funding family-planning advice in developing countries may be scrapped.

Labor MPs have been asked to nominate themselves for a caucus committee to look into overhauling AusAID's policy banning funding for projects which gave out information about abortion and contraception.

The regulations date back to the 1990s, when conservative Tasmanian independent Brian Harradine held the balance of power in the Senate and was able to influence the Howard government on social issues.

Senator Harradine retired in June 2005.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson left the door open to supporting a change in January, saying Australia had to do everything it could to give people in the developing world a reasonable expectation of a healthy life.

Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said she welcomed Labor's decision to review the guidelines.

"But it must not be rail-roaded by the few who will never agree to abortion," she said.

huh?

deepthought wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:29pm:


um aborted baby already has hiv then...

so what your saying is that we should abort african babies who may or may not have hiv?

deepthought wrote on Mar 20^th, 2008 at 6:51pm:


ah ok,

you would probably be surprised how many times i have heard that argument used...

http://news.smh.com.au/national/govt-undecided-on-abortion-aid-debate-20080608-2nga.html

The Rudd government has not yet decided on whether to overturn a ban on providing funds to overseas aid programs giving advice on abortion.

The ban was introduced a decade ago by the Howard government, but Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is once again looking into the issue.

Mr Rudd told the Ten Network he was sure there would be a caucus discussion on the issue.

"Put all this into context - there was an all-party report last year chaired by the Liberal Party under Dr Mal Washer, as I understand it, which recommended that these guidelines agreed in the past by the Liberal government be changed," he said.

"That, of course, has triggered further discussion both within the Liberal Party now, and in our own party.

"The caucus I'm sure will debate this at the appropriate time."

But Mr Rudd said he would like to see more information before making a set decision on whether to support a change to the current ban.

"The exact nature or the quantum of our funding commitment to these programs to assist population control mechanisms in developing countries and how they are administered, I'd really like to get my head around all of the detail of that before getting into the substance of the debate," he said.

When asked if the churches would play a role in the government's decision, Mr Rudd said they were entitled to participate in the debate.

"Look, it's a democracy.

"Everyone's got a pretty fair chance to have their say in this country.

"Let's have a discussion and as soon as I'm across all the detail, I'll be in it as well.

"It's one of the things which is part of how you govern the country - being open to challenge rather than saying any challenge to us represents some sort of threat to our political authority. Not our approach."

mantra wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 7:44pm:


You have absolutely no idea about abortion, do you?  


Sometimes it SAVES lives.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 8:35pm:


Nope. My wires are not crossed.     What the hell would you know about having an abortion, huh?  Please don't tell me what I should or should not understand or whether my "wires are crossed" or whatever. Jerk!