The future for women in this country scares me, especially if Bush is reelected. And being a woman, this is one of my top concerns, right behind the safety of my children.
Abstinence only programs in schools, contraceptive coverage removed for federal employees (is Viagra covered, I wonder?), but don't just take my word for it, this taken from Planned Parenthood.
- The president's FY2001 budget doubles education funding for dangerous "abstinence-only" programs (October 11, 2001).
- "Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named to head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).
- U.S. delegation to the U.N. Children's Summit, led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, fights sexuality education and opposes condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention (May 2002).
- The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).
- The president withholds more then $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan (August 2, 2002).
- Anti-condom "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Freda McKissic named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention (September 6, 2002).
- HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
- "Abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden named to oversee Title X, nation's family planning program (October 7, 2002).
- The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site posts a "revised" fact sheet that suggests an unproved link between abortion and breast cancer (November 25, 2002).
- State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention (August 1, 2003).
- Anti-choice hardliners resort to intimidation tactics to pressure NIH scientists to abandon research on AIDS, sexuality and high-risk behavior (October 28, 2003).
- Budget released for FY 2005 funds "abstinence-only" sex education and marriage initiatives, freezes funding for Title X family planning services (February 2, 2004).
- FDA bows to political pressure and delays making decision on converting emergency contraception to over-the-counter status (February 13, 2004).
- FDA disregards recommendations of its own independent review board, and denies over-the-counter status to Barr Laboratories' Plan B® emergency contraception (May 6, 2004).
So, let me try to make sense of this. The plan is to ban abortions, but at the same time, deny coverage for birth control, promote abstinence only and appoint anti-condom proponents as the leaders on HIV and STD Prevention? Does anyone else see the ludicracy in this?
Posts
Staying Still Amidst Change
-
I’ve been following Hope’s posts about her potential move and the
significant transitions she’s been navigating in recent years—changes that
have affecte...
11 hours ago
4 comments:
Spritzy
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Women's Rights Slowly Being Stripped Away
The future for women in this country scares me, especially if Bush is reelected. And being a woman, this is one of my top concerns, right behind the safety of my children.
Abstinence only programs in schools, contraceptive coverage removed for federal employees (is Viagra covered, I wonder?), but don't just take my word for it, this taken from Planned Parenthood.
- The president's FY2001 budget doubles education funding for dangerous "abstinence-only" programs (October 11, 2001).
- "Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named to head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).
- U.S. delegation to the U.N. Children's Summit, led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, fights sexuality education and opposes condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention (May 2002).
- The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).
- The president withholds more then $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan (August 2, 2002).
- Anti-condom "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Freda McKissic named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention (September 6, 2002).
- HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
- "Abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden named to oversee Title X, nation's family planning program (October 7, 2002).
- The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site posts a "revised" fact sheet that suggests an unproved link between abortion and breast cancer (November 25, 2002).
- State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention (August 1, 2003).
- Anti-choice hardliners resort to intimidation tactics to pressure NIH scientists to abandon research on AIDS, sexuality and high-risk behavior (October 28, 2003).
- Budget released for FY 2005 funds "abstinence-only" sex education and marriage initiatives, freezes funding for Title X family planning services (February 2, 2004).
- FDA bows to political pressure and delays making decision on converting emergency contraception to over-the-counter status (February 13, 2004).
- FDA disregards recommendations of its own independent review board, and denies over-the-counter status to Barr Laboratories' Plan B® emergency contraception (May 6, 2004).
So, let me try to make sense of this. The plan is to ban abortions, but at the same time, deny coverage for birth control, promote abstinence only and appoint anti-condom proponents as the leaders on HIV and STD Prevention? Does anyone else see the ludicracy in this?
posted by Courtney at 7:46 AM 0 comments
---------
You recently asked for nonbiased sources. In the Pro-choice / Pro-Life debates, Planned Parenthood is very definitely in the "Pro-choice" camp, performing more abortions than any other group in the world. Any attempt at decreasing their funding is met with near-hysteria. My full disclosure: I no longer contribute to United Way because of their support for Planned Parenthood.
I read the Planned Parenthood link you sent me to. They're not exactly truthful with their references - for instance, they claim "Anti-Choice Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering... who had ...been rejected by the Senate, re-nominated to Circuit Courts of Appeals ( January 7, 2003)." Pickering wasn't rejected; he was filibustered. The Senate likely would have approved Pickering but was never given the chance to vote.
I notice that instead of "Pro-Life" they're using the term "Anti-Choice." Pro-Lifers consider that the fetus, too, has a choice, and that the mother had a choice befor contraception, so Planned Parenthood's label, besides being opposite of how Pro-Lifers consider themselves, is designed to sway opinion to allow abortions which means more funding for Planned Parenthood, hardly an unbiased source. If they're going to label the opposition "Anti-Choice," would they feel it unfair to be labeled "Anti-Life?" Probably.
They also criticize "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" passes Senate, grants fertilized egg legal status distinct from woman, posing threat to the foundations of Roe v. Wade (March 25, 2004)." That's actually a California liberal initiative, the "Lacy and Connor" act. Although passed under the Bush administration, it has wide bipartisan support and was initiated by Democrats.
They also say "Politics trump women's health, Senate passes abortion ban, S.3 (March 13, 2003). " This is the partial birth abortion ban, a description Planned Parenthood doesn't like. I'd explain exactly what that procedure is, but it's disgusting. Health experts have testified that this procedure is never necessary to save the life of the mother and so the law excludes that as an excuse to have this type of abortion. Again, less abortions = less funding = biased source for news.
Since Planned Parenthood doesn't provide links to all their statements, it's hard research all of their objections, but those are biased positions I recognize off the top of my head.
If you're going to demand unbiased sources, you can't quote biased sources to prove your point. :P
Hey, it was a biased opinion! Therefore, I'll use biased sources to back it up!
In all seriousness, my main point is, if your belief is pro-life, what alternatives are you offering? Abstinence as the only method of birth control? Isn't that a religious belief?
What is the best method to prevent abortions- outlaw them or prevent them? Outlaw them and women will die just like before Roe V. Wade. Prevent them and there's no discussion.
And as for pro-life tatics, what about plastering vans with the pictures of aborted fetuses and driving through residential neighborhoods and murdering abortion doctors? What effect does this have on the children that pro-lifers are trying to protect?
As women, we need to get riled up about these issues because if we don't, our rights will be gone. And I do see your point about the fetus's rights. I just don't agree with that position. As a women who has carried two children in my womb, my position was strengthened even more. My body, my choice.
The statement that dilation and extraction is never medically necessary is blatantly false. Even the most cursory Internet search will yield multiple medical conditions that can occur in late term pregnancy that would be more than justification for this procedure. Also severe birth defects such as babies with only a brain stem (although rare it does occur) would justify this procedure.
On another note look in the background of the photo op of this bill being signed by the moron in the White House. Notice that is it all men. I do believe if men could get pregnant the right to abortion would be in the bill of rights.
It was a civil discourse until Miss Anonymous started calling the most moral president we've had in 11 years a "moron." He has a Masters in Business from Harvard, hardly moronic.
I would agree that prevention is the best policy; I believe the best prevention is abstinence, and after that, contraception. But more than that, I don't believe it's the government's responsibility to decide that, fund that, nor teach that. Parents should pass their morals to their children; pro-life parents don't want pro-choice forced on them any more than pro-choice parents want pro-life forced on them.
Where we differ is *after* conception. At that point, I believe that the pre-born, no matter how old, has civil and unalienable rights and that as a society it is our duty to protect those rights on behalf of those unable to protect themselves. I don't expect you to agree on that point; I expect you to take the position that it's not a life (yet). At which point I'll counter that you can never be sure you're not ending a life, and there the argument will stalemate, neither side willing to concede. No sense in rehashing *that* again and again. :)
The partial birth abortion was banned as never medically necessary to save the woman's life. That's not my opinion, that was the US Senate's position and why the "medically necessary" part was specifically excluded. I'm not a doctor so I can't make that judgment, but I *can* state that that's the reason that language was specifically excluded from that bill's language. The resulting lawsuit, not unexpected, claims otherwise, that is *is* medically necessary, and presents case studies. When the government requested access to those studies, they were rebuffed in the name of medical privacy. In short, the government is currently unable to prove it's never medically necessary due to privacy restrictions on the medical data.
And I agree on the "mutilated fetuses" approach. If one takes the position that abortion = murder, then displaying a mutilated fetus is hardly respectful of the dead.
And to take the position that this is *men* inflicting their beliefs on abortion on *women* is short-sighted and ignores the fact 43% of women oppose abortion and 47% of men favor abortion. (Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2020/scotusabortion030619_poll.html ) So this is not a male / female issue - it's primarily a religious / non-religious issue regarding the sanctity of human life and at what point one believes life begins. Trying to claim the issue is men inflicting their viewpoint upon women trivializes the issue and insults both sexes unecessarily.
Post a Comment