D’oh! It’s fund TRAINING of death squads!
:mad:
That had nothing to do with my post. I just wanted to post the entire quote. I was mainly concerned with the first part of the quote.
“Bush opposes abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of
the pregnant woman”
What I thought you meant was a cite that says that AIDS is an epidemic in Africa. Those were the numbers I could find. If this is what you wanted, you should have been more clear.
From International Planned Parenthood Federation
From the same site, some of the other services that will be affected by the “gag rule”
Finally, from the same site:
From Bush is a bully
It does not mention AIDS and STDs specifically, however, when one learns how to properly use a condom etc, one is learning how to prevent unwanted pregnancies as well as how to prevent STDs.
Next time, please read my post a little more carefully. I was using rape, violence, and FGM to illustrate my point that women are already second class citizens in Africa.
Current law bans the use of U.S. funds for any abortions in foreign countries.
The international planned parenthood organizations do many, many things other than abortion!
Thank you wring for the cite!
Thank you pldennison for putting it better than I could.
I din’t see that in either the OP article, or In Bush’s release.
From The OP article:
I do not think that is saying what you think it is saying.
The article:
Your quote:
I assume that by mention, you’re not counting stuff like “Abortion is an abomination against God!” I can’t imagine any way to “mention” the word in a clinical context without “performing the surgery, counseling on abortion as a family-planning option, or
lobbying foreign governments on abortion policy.” If you could give me such a usage, I’ll retract the blackmail part of my statement. But you have clearly said that restricting money based on counseling is “troubling,” and that’s what Bush’s order does.
Ok…imagine that there’s a ** in there somewhere.
GAH! And then, imagine that the unbold vB symbol appeared in that post…
grumble
Then, pray tell. What is it saying?
To me it looks like it is saying “If the A-word is mentioned in any context, than the organization will not receive money from the US”
Just because you are unable to grasp the distinction does not mean it does not exist.
FYI to Connor: Scylla is male.
It’s seems pretty clear to me to that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from organizations that are promoting abortion as a family planning tool, or lobbying to have it used as such.
This is different than blanket censorship of the entire concept.
The Ryan:
I didn’t say I couldn’t grasp the distinction. I said it was without meaning.
Flymaster:
I guess it’s catching. I had the bold problem twice already.
What bothers me about the edict, brought on by what Pldennison said, is that not actively funding abortion and abortion related activities is one thing, and I think such a stance is correct, as the U.S. Government should not be promoting what is an elctive and personal choice for an individual.
Bush’s stance is of course not the neutral stance that I would prefer of absolutely neither support nor interference, but the activist stance against abortion.
His move, as it stands now, brings us more towards true neutrality: We do not actively assist abortion in any way whatsoever.
Doubtless Bush will push it further in activism against abortion. He is after all pro-life. This however is as far as I go. Though I think abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or medical necessity, I support the woman’s right to choose and make her own decision concerning her body rather than have my morality inflicted upon her.
When you start talking about late term abortions that are past the point of fetal viability, I think it’s probably too late for a woman to decide to have an abortion, and I no longer support her choice. In between is a great grey area where I’m not sure what the law should be.
I don’t think government should be promoting abortion or supporting those that do. I am not so naive as to believe that the withholding of funds can be used as a tool of blackmail and activism against abortion.
Any move the other way can be used as a tool of activism to promote abortion though, so this is as good a place as any to draw the line, IMO.
It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the order is to withhold funding from organizations that inform pregnant women of their legal options, to attempt to make one of those options disappear for lack of anyone providing information.
Wouldn’t it be more honest to just overturn Roe v. Wade? As PuddleGlum says, if you believe in it, then say it, and get yourself elected to do it.
A death of a thousand cuts is just hypocritical.
hansel:
I had sincerely thought that I addressed your point pretty clearly in my previous post.
From the cite in the OP (bolding mine):
It’s worth noting that in clinical medicine, “counseling” is the general term for “providing information to the patient”. If I talk to the patient for a minute or two about smoking cessation, I say in my note that I “counseled the patient on smoking cessation”.
This is my problem with the restriction. When a pregnant woman comes to a medical clinic, the doctor should be free to counsel her on all her available options, because anything less (IMO) is malpractice. A strict reading of this restriction could prevent doctors in any federally-funded international program from doing so. (I don’t have any reason to suspect that the regulation won’t be given the strictest of readings.)
Medical and other family-planning personnel should be free to inform women that abortion is an option without fear of losing federal funds. They should be able to tell her about the procedure and its risks, and even tell her where she can have it done. Organizations who encourage women to have abortions should not only lose their federal funding, but should be shut down completely. However, there is a world of difference between “encourage” and “provide information about”.
Dr. J
DoctorJ:
Thank you for the clarification. In the immortal words of Robert E. Lee upon being informed after the fact that the Federal position had been reinforced prior to Picket’s charge: “I did not know that.” (regarding “counseling.”)
I think your asessment and opinion are dead-on the target I was trying to hit. Thanks.
Are you ignoring my posts and the links I provide?
Bolding mine.
Bush is withholding funds from the IPPF. The IPPF does not advocate abortion as a method of family planning. However, they do offer counseling (as defined by Doctor J) So, they do not get any money, at all. This hurts them, as I already outlined in my previous thread.
That is why Bush is completely wrong on this issue.
Why are you still arguing in support of him?
Since I have so thoughtfully provided information about a major organization that does not advocate abortion as a family planning tool, can you please provide information about an organization that does? Obviously if there is one that does, and breaks a major law by using US funds to perform the abortions, then it would be very pertinant to this debate.
If you mean your point about the neutrality of not funding something that is an elective and personal choice (I was posting while you wrote that), then I have to disagree. Abortion is a legal option. Cutting funding for discussing a legal option weighs against that option; making funding conditional on avoiding the mere mention of an option is a positive prohibition. It is not neutrality, it’s subtle activism.
Pepperlandgirl:
No, I was not ignoring your posts (didn’t I respond at length to the two previous?)
I hadn’t worked my way through the last one when DoctorJ posted. My apologies.
DoctorJ’s specific conclusion that Bush’s ruling goes too far as it handicaps a Doctor’s ability to do his job re: proper counseling seems pretty flawless, specific and concrete. Doubtless, I will muddle through the implications and adjust my thinking suitably.
Your general conclusion that Bush and all Republicans/conservatives are hypocrites (as you stated,) doesn’t necessarily follow.
You can call abortion a “woman’s right to choose” but a LOT of people in this world see abortion as legalized infanticide. W is one of them. Since he believes that aborting a fetus is no different than taking a knife to your newborn, surely you can understand why he wants to end this practice. You don’t have to agree with him to then understand why he thinks it is an outrage to spend tax dollars supporting this practice throughout the world.
The same argument can be made re capital punishment. A lot of Americans support capital punishment and a lot of Americans are adamantly opposed to it. The latter believe that executing a criminal is akin to legalized murder. Whether or not you agree with this premise, surely you can understand WHY they take this position, and why they work tirelessly to end capital punishment altogether.
Speaking of ignoring posts…are YOU ignoring Connor and my posts about your characterization of pro life posters in regards to the rape/incest exception?