Jump to content
PtxPwner

Gag Rule Gone? - An Aff in danger of losing on inherency. oh noes!

Recommended Posts

Congress Votes to Repeal Global Gag Rule

 

Tod Preston, Population Action International on September 7, 2007 - 10:20am

 

...Last night, despite President Bush's veto threat, the Senate passed the FY 2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (by a vote of 81-12) that includes significant provisions overturning destructive policies on family planning and HIV/AIDS. Thanks to the leadership and commitment of Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Senate bill not only includes the identical measures in the House-passed bill (H.R. 2764) -- exempting contraceptives from the Global Gag Rule and repealing the abstinence-only funding restrictions for HIV prevention programs -- it goes even further by repealing the Gag Rule entirely.

This repudiation of some of the most egregious and harmful aspects of U.S. international family planning and reproductive health policy marks a major -- and long overdue -- victory for sound public health. And to put it in historical perspective, the Senate vote today is the first time since the Gag Rule has been in force -- from 1984 to 1993 and again since 2001 -- that both the House and the Senate have passed legislation to repeal or modify the restriction. This is significant in light of the all-important showdown that looms with the White House over President Bush's threatened veto of the entire $34 billion foreign assistance bill over the Gag Rule provisions.

The Senate 53-41 vote in favor of an amendment to repeal the Gag Rule, sponsored by Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Snowe (R-ME), is a victory for the tens of millions of poor women overseas who have been victimized by the Gag Rule and lack basic reproductive health care such as contraceptives. It's a powerful recognition of the Gag Rule's devastating impact on family planning programs...

 

 

 

Thoughts?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he vetoes it, there should be some pretty glorious politics links to the aff.

 

If no, it'll be nice that another annoying untopical aff is gone.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he vetoes it, there should be some pretty glorious politics links to the aff.

 

If no, it'll be nice that another annoying untopical aff is gone.

When you put it that way this looks like a win-win situation for neg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush will veto it, as he's the one who enacted the policy from the beginning.

 

I have a question though, as the congress already enacted the bill, could somebody make an argument that like normal means recreates a plan which was already pass which is bad for X reason, which would make an XO the only way to solve for the plan [or a CP like "Bush will pass xxx"]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
What about a democratic victory? Depending on who gets elected they will probably abolish it anyway (since that seems to be the trend). I think the elections might be a greater threat to inherency than this vote.

 

too bad the elections is in 08. the election is not gunna affect inherency for this yr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is more of a win for the aff. Politics disads about the gag rule are empirically non-unique, and I'm sure a veto will occur before the season gets too deep.

 

I think it also helps the neg - opens them up to a plethora of process CP's taking the veto into account, XO's, etc.

 

It will make the processional debate about the rejection of the gag rule more interesting, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
Alot of tournaments are in 08 though...Harvard, Berkely, Nationals, CFL's, MBA, Emory. I'm sure I'm missing some but I would be worried about it if I was running ggr.

 

the elections are in November of 08. we will be on a new topic by then.

 

lol random neg rep

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this helps the AFF in topicality debates but hurts the AFF in the internal link and advantage debate:

 

The AFF plan text usually says something to the extent of "the USFG should fund countries in SSA that promote abortion (and possibly adding disregarding the laws set by the Mexico city policy or overturning the Mexico City Policy). Therefore the AFF is more topical. However, the internal links to the advantages are weaker because I believe most of them are based off overturning the GAG rule but I am sure a good AFF will have funding internal links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was that the old plan text was effectually topical because it effectually overturned the GAG rule. However the new plan text just has to be changed to increase aid to countries that promote abortion and does not effectually do anything making it more topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my point was that the old plan text was effectually topical because it effectually overturned the GAG rule. However the new plan text just has to be changed to increase aid to countries that promote abortion and does not effectually do anything making it more topical.

 

First of all, it's just an amendment to the appropriation bill that Bush already promised to veto. The inherency is no different until we have a new president who [probably] will repeal it.

 

Second of all, most peoples gag rule affirmatives just repeal the mexico city policy, which effectually increases aid. I haven't seen a version that increases aid also.

 

Third of all, all plans are effectually topical and if you seriously worry about losing FX-T, you need to go back to JV debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second of all, most peoples gag rule affirmatives just repeal the mexico city policy, which effectually increases aid.

you have no idea what you are talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, it's just an amendment to the appropriation bill that Bush already promised to veto. The inherency is no different until we have a new president who [probably] will repeal it.

 

Second of all, most peoples gag rule affirmatives just repeal the mexico city policy, which effectually increases aid. I haven't seen a version that increases aid also.

 

Third of all, all plans are effectually topical and if you seriously worry about losing FX-T, you need to go back to JV debate.

 

1. The inherency does change until Bush vetoes it.

 

2. They exist and so does the ev.

 

3. If you are assuming I am running the gag rule aff, I would not be afraid of losing to that arg. It was a simple statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Michigan 7 Week's Aff didn't directly repeal the Gag Rule in the text. The plan text called for giving aid to NGOs in SSA that offer family planning and abortion information and services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI: This bill is not even at the point where it can be vetoed by Bush yet. The House originally passed it w/o multiple amendments, particularly the gag rule amendment. Now that the Senate passed it WITH those additions, the bill has to go to a Senate-House conference where they'll negotiate the differences. If the amendment makes it through that, then we can worry about Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...