Comments on: Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/ news and commentary from a conservative perspective Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:38:59 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Badger Blogger » Blog Archive » Obama nominee says taxpayer-funded abortion is a 1st Amendment right http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-644038 Badger Blogger » Blog Archive » Obama nominee says taxpayer-funded abortion is a 1st Amendment right Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:12:32 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-644038 [...] h/t: Michelle Malkin [...] [...] h/t: Michelle Malkin [...]

]]> By: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: US Funding of UNFPA Could Represent Ten Percent of Agency Budget http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-606234 digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: US Funding of UNFPA Could Represent Ten Percent of Agency Budget Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:10:20 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-606234 [...] Jan 27: Michelle Malkin blog: Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right [...] [...] Jan 27: Michelle Malkin blog: Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right [...]

]]> By: Steynian 317 « Free Canuckistan! http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-605390 Steynian 317 « Free Canuckistan! Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:44:15 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-605390 [...] OBAMA NOMINEE: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right …. [...] [...] OBAMA NOMINEE: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right …. [...]

]]> By: Jeff2161 http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604950 Jeff2161 Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:20:08 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604950 The Supreme Court invariably refuses to " definitively decide " anything; thus, allowing continuing confusion and litigation. Full employment for lawyers. :shock: The Supreme Court invariably refuses to ” definitively decide ” anything; thus, allowing continuing confusion and litigation. Full employment for lawyers. :shock:

]]> By: Pro-Lifers Rallying Cry « The Pugnacious Irishman http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604341 Pro-Lifers Rallying Cry « The Pugnacious Irishman Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:55:05 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604341 [...] Taxpayer funded abortion a free-speech right? That’s a slap, as the kids say. [...] [...] Taxpayer funded abortion a free-speech right? That’s a slap, as the kids say. [...]

]]> By: ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604312 ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines? Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:01:05 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604312 [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...] [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...]

]]> By: ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604311 ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines? Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:01:01 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604311 [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...] [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...]

]]> By: Are Republicans Growing Spines? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604296 Are Republicans Growing Spines? Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:33:30 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604296 [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...] [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...]

]]> By: Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604292 Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:29:28 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604292 [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...] [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...]

]]> By: Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604293 Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:29:27 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604293 [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...] [...] Taxpayer funding of abortion: now a Constitutional right. (Hat Tip: Malkin.) [...]

]]> By: chapoutier http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604024 chapoutier Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:44:53 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604024 That is not to say the Supreme Court would rule that such restrictions ARE a violation of free speech, just that Rust does not in anyway "definitively decide" the issue. That is not to say the Supreme Court would rule that such restrictions ARE a violation of free speech, just that Rust does not in anyway “definitively decide” the issue.

]]> By: chapoutier http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-604021 chapoutier Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:43:51 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-604021 vargas... Okay. I have looked at this more closely and... You are right. DeMint, MM and me are wrong. Rust is easily distinguishable here. vargas…

Okay. I have looked at this more closely and…

You are right.

DeMint, MM and me are wrong. Rust is easily distinguishable here.

]]> By: vargas http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-603953 vargas Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:25:08 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-603953 Chap: I think you're mistaken about the matter in Rust. From the Court's opinion: The Secretary's regulations do not force the Title X grantee to give up abortion-related speech; they merely require that the grantee keep such activities separate and distinct from Title X activities. Title X expressly distinguishes between a Title X grantee and a Title X project. The grantee, which normally is a health-care organization, may receive funds from a variety of sources for a variety of purposes. The grantee receives Title X funds, however, for the specific and limited purpose of establishing and operating a Title X project. The regulations govern the scope of the Title X project's activities, and leave the grantee unfettered in its other activities. The Title X grantee can continue to perform abortions, provide abortion-related services, and engage in abortion advocacy; it simply is required to conduct those activities through programs that are separate and independent from the project that receives Title X funds. The organization can still counsel abortion or talk about it--they just actually do have to partition their funds. In the opinion there is also some discussion of various factors the Secretary of Health and Human Services can look at to see if the activities actually are separate. I think if it hadn't been narrowed in this way, the case may have come out differently--the government can't condition a benefit on someone fully giving up a constitutional right. Chap:

I think you’re mistaken about the matter in Rust. From the Court’s opinion:

The Secretary’s regulations do not force the Title X grantee to give up abortion-related speech; they merely require that the grantee keep such activities separate and distinct from Title X activities. Title X expressly distinguishes between a Title X grantee and a Title X project. The grantee, which normally is a health-care organization, may receive funds from a variety of sources for a variety of purposes. The grantee receives Title X funds, however, for the specific and limited purpose of establishing and operating a Title X project. The regulations govern the scope of the Title X project’s activities, and leave the grantee unfettered in its other activities. The Title X grantee can continue to perform abortions, provide abortion-related services, and engage in abortion advocacy; it simply is required to conduct those activities through programs that are separate and independent from the project that receives Title X funds.

The organization can still counsel abortion or talk about it–they just actually do have to partition their funds. In the opinion there is also some discussion of various factors the Secretary of Health and Human Services can look at to see if the activities actually are separate.
I think if it hadn’t been narrowed in this way, the case may have come out differently–the government can’t condition a benefit on someone fully giving up a constitutional right.

]]> By: CW4_KGP http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-603910 CW4_KGP Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:42:15 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-603910 <blockquote>On January 27th, 2009 at 10:22 am, cpodug said: <blockquote>Kevin K. said: James Steinberg has reached new lows in twisting word meanings and logic to bad ends.</blockquote> Ah - but he is a nominee of The One, therefore he automatically knows better than the Supremes.</blockquote> <em><strong>Say What? How could anyone know more than Diana, Mary and Flo??? I mean, come on, The Supremes....oh, not THOSE Supremes? Let me consult wit' Sekrterry Kanye 'bout dat.</strong></em>

On January 27th, 2009 at 10:22 am, cpodug said:

Kevin K. said: James Steinberg has reached new lows in twisting word meanings and logic to bad ends.

Ah – but he is a nominee of The One, therefore he automatically knows better than the Supremes.

Say What? How could anyone know more than Diana, Mary and Flo??? I mean, come on, The Supremes….oh, not THOSE Supremes? Let me consult wit’ Sekrterry Kanye ’bout dat.

]]> By: chapoutier http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/obama-nominee-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-a-free-speech-right/comment-page-1/#comment-603892 chapoutier Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:17:23 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=22106#comment-603892 I believe the Mexico City Policy, or the matter in Rust (as it stood whne that case was decided), look at the entity as a whole. If the organization counsels abortion, it is cut off, even if none of the money goes directly toward funding such services (which is probably the correct thing to do. it is dumb to partition money like this). Similarly, I don't think anything in the Mexico City policy prevents a doctor who works in a clinic from counselling abortion in his own private practice, so long as s/he does not do so within the context of the clinic. In other words, from what I have read the gag rule in Rust seems identical to the global gag rule. I believe the Mexico City Policy, or the matter in Rust (as it stood whne that case was decided), look at the entity as a whole. If the organization counsels abortion, it is cut off, even if none of the money goes directly toward funding such services (which is probably the correct thing to do. it is dumb to partition money like this). Similarly, I don’t think anything in the Mexico City policy prevents a doctor who works in a clinic from counselling abortion in his own private practice, so long as s/he does not do so within the context of the clinic.

In other words, from what I have read the gag rule in Rust seems identical to the global gag rule.

]]>