Where am I wrong?

If the monies that were designated for non-abortion access NGOs are
now being shifted (because of President Obama’s rescinding of the Mexico City Policy) to abortion-access NGOs, then we have a major issue:

The rescinding of the Mexico City Policy is not about reducing unwanted pregnancies, it’s about reducing unwanted infants.

Why say this? (1) The Reagan-Bush policy: The monies were shifted from abortion-access NGOs to

non-abortion access NGOs by Reagan and Bush. Those monies were and are
currently being used to provide health care for women and were
providing contraception in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies. (2) The Obama policy: By
shifting monies to the abortion-access NGOs we are not gaining in NGOs
that are providing help for unwanted pregnancies. All that these monies
can do are being used right now to prevent unwanted pregnancies. (This is my logical fulcrum.) By Obama’s shifting of the funds the only change is that
abortion-access clinics are now getting the monies that non-abortion access
NGOs once were getting.

This policy doesn’t reduce unwanted pregnancies, it
reduces unwanted infants — that’s called abortion.

This is not a Third Way.

More from Beliefnet and our partners