I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Notice how this was another late Friday, same day as a big splashy front page Iraq story revelation to hide the indignation. Every remotely good thing Bush proposes (more money for AIDS in Africa) is done with an ulterior motive.
Not to mention the "bait and switch" tactic so prevalent in this administration.
Money for First Responders! Sorry! Tax cuts for the rich!
No Child Left Behind! Oops, I apologize! Tax cuts for the rich!
Money to stop AIDS in Africa! Sorry! Only if you toe our line will we fund you. Maybe.
The decision came on Tuesday and was reported in the NYTimes, but not reported elsewhere till the AP picked it up on Friday.
The decision is awful and concerning the $15 billion dollar AIDS program there is a stipulation that a third of the funds spent on prevention must be spent on abstinence programs. Also, there was NO funding on AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean for 2003. The funding will begin with $2 billion for the AIDS struggle in Africa and the Caribbean in 2004.
I guess while he was meditating on his moral scorecard in Crawford, he decided a few more unwanted foreign babies would help offset those uncounted Iraqi civilian dead.
W will stop at nothing to turn out the Fundaloony vote. The world must be recreated in their insane-assed image, and the rest of us must be forced to live it it. Bring on the fire and brimstone, but please aim it in the proper diection.
Gloria nails it:
Said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund: "The world's poorest women and their children again are bearing the brunt of Bush's obsession with appeasing his domestic political base. This is the real face of Bush's compassionate conservatism."
Bush and his cronies are despicable. The rabid right's influence has been destructive and demeaning. They spew their backward thinking while the poor of the world suffer. Practical and realistic they're not.
The myth of Bush's compassionate conservatism. And lets not forget that there are more people dying in Iraq right now then when Saddam was ruling the country.
Doesn't that make Bush the real butcher of Baghdad? Bush is using Americans and using Iraqis so he can give lots of money to his big oil friends. Cheney lies to congress and Bush lies to the world.
And I'm tired of the British people blaming the US for Bush lies when Tony Blair told the citizens of the UK the exact same lies. Bush and Blair are not serving the countries, they're serving big oil. Both leaders are just using us. I'm tired of being used by Bush and Company and I want Bush impeached. Americans should be ufficiently tired of being bilked over energy cost, enough to have Bush and Cheney impeached. It's time to take big oil companies to the court for downsizing the same as Microsoft was taking to court.
Energy companies are controlling what our government is doing right now and the fact is we are no longer a free people if we can't put an end to it.
So long as it fools the trailer park, it goes on.
Suckers.
Bush enjoys suffering and death. This has been obvious for some time.
Bush signed the initial gag rule (now broadened) within hours of his inauguration.
Tuesday, 23 January, 2001, 00:04 GMT
Bush blocks abortion funding
Can't repeat this enough:
Said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund: "The world's poorest women and their children again are bearing the brunt of Bush's obsession with appeasing his domestic political base. This is the real face of Bush's compassionate conservatism."
Donate < HREF=http://member.plannedparenthood.org/site/PageServer?pagename=donating> here.
Sorry...
Donate here.
Aaaaugh!
http://
member.plannedparenthood....gename=donating
Bush signed the initial gag rule (now broadened) within hours of his inauguration.
Tuesday, 23 January, 2001, 00:04 GMT
Bush blocks abortion funding
The new US President, George W Bush, has signed an executive order cutting off federal funding to international agencies which support women seeking an abortion.
The executive order was one of President Bush's first decisions since taking office on Saturday.
The move, reversing the policy of the Clinton administration, was timed to support thousands of anti-abortion protesters rallying in Washington to mark the 28th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Roe vs Wade decision to legalise abortion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
1131329.stm
(Just in case anyone wondered where he really stood.)
Also yesterday, in another under-the-Friday-radar announcement, a new OMB proposal:
Bush Would Add Review Layer for Rules
Industry Cheers Science Peer-Appraisal Plan; Critics Say It Will Discourage Regulation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Aug29.html
Funnily enough, this story mentions dead babies, too.
"Peer review could become a tool to say, 'When there is uncertainty, don't regulate -- you need dead babies before you can regulate,' " said Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a watchdog group. "Our fear is, in the worst-case scenario, important public protections dealing with the environment, health, safety and civil rights regulations get stopped in their tracks because [peer review] becomes a hurdle you cannot get over."
Also see:
The Bush Global Gag Rule: Endangering Women’s Health, Free Speech and Democracy
from the Center for Reproductive Rights
http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_ggrbush.html
hoping every day that his idiot spawn get knocked up and get abortions that will be page 1 SOON.
Not just the trailer park, but also those Baptists and Methodists in the Park Cities (Dallas money) or Buckhead (wealthy assholes in Atlanta).
With all due respect, dave, I'm withholding contributions to anything but groups working to get Bush out of office.
I don't think it helps that cause by helping to restore funding to anything he's cut. I want to make sure that the blame lands on him when people who need services he's cut can't get them. I know that may sound cold-hearted, but if I use my money to try to help plug all the holes in the social services dyke (that's as in dam, not lesbian) then I have nothing left to use to help get rid of him. And if we don't get rid of him in 2004, that dam isn't going to just be full of holes, it's gonna burst.
Besides, I don't think all of us collectively could contribute enough to offset the ill effects of his cuts. So my money is going elsewhere, at least for now.
Why should US Taxpayers be paying for Chinese abortions? And this is not a Gag Rule. No one is saying you cannot advocate abortion overseas. You can support the common practice in China of aborting female children in deference to male children as loudly as you want, just don't expect me to pay for this sick misogynistic practice.
dave, and anyone else.
I think Haloscan takes regular HTML links. Learn how to do it. It will take you like 1 minute to learn.
Just type this:
<a href="URL"></a>
And you should be good to go.
Actually, this might be more helpful:
<a href="http://www.yoururl.com">http://
www.yoururl.com</a>
Bush opposes abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or when pregnancy endangers a woman's life.
Edited out due to space considerations: "or the mother is one of the twins or a Bush family member could be stuck with child support payments."
And, Atrios, you're correct. That is the logic. Sick.
Most of Republican Party is made up of reptiles like Tom Dalay and George Bush. The brush needs clearing
and smoking.
let me see if I get it....
life inside womb=sacred
life outside womb=who gives a fuck
....I see, it's all about the womb.....
These are the paragraphs that caught my eye. Yet more faith-based policy making:
The State Department said it believed one of several groups participating in the AIDS initiative, Marie Stopes International, supports involuntary abortions and sterilizations in China.
Marie Stopes offers abortion counseling and services, but U.S. officials said they had no evidence it supported forced abortions.
Emphasis added.
I don't think they are sick. I think they are perverted in the literal sense of the word. (No pun/s intended) Wrap your mind around that.
Either way, it is a very sad thing to watch. Are we on the cusp of a dark age? Perhaps. I think it is cyclical and we are presently sliding down the slope although we are still very near the top of that slope. But all signs point to slippage.
Also is the plural of 'fetus' feti?
Jeanne d'Arc at Body & Soul pointed out, w/ regard to Marie Stopes, that the Bushies are cutting them off because they sometimes worked with the UN group, who, in turn, did work in China that necessarily involved dealing with the Chinese gov't.
Now, when the Chinese gov't harrasses, imprisons, and kills workers trying to organize, we say we have to work with them to change them gradually through the magic of capitalism.
But where fetuses are concerned, Anyone who tries to provide Chinese women (and the babies themselves) with health services must be punished--to at least two degrees of separation.
And yes, Anon, it is a gag rule--If your clinic so much as speaks of abortion, we ain't helpin. Of course, that means more birth defects, more unwanted babies, more infant mortality, but hey, Pat Robertson feels better and that's what matters.
Why should US Taxpayers be paying for Chinese abortions? And this is not a Gag Rule...
WTF are you talking about???
libdevil: They believe Marie Stopes supports forced abortions, but they have no evidence? You know what that means -- more faith-based social policy!
/pro-lifer who's sick of these troglodytic bastards
I believe it was Barney Franks who said:
"Conservatives' interest in life begins at conception and ends at birth."
Heh.
I just want to remind us that George Bush and his followers would be content if there were no reproductive rights for women anywhere in the world. The guy is a monster.
You can support the common practice in China of aborting female children in deference to male children as loudly as you want, just don't expect me to pay for this sick misogynistic practice.
Dear Anonymous: the State Department's own assessment team reported back to Colin Powell that, in the areas of China where the UNFPA work, there was no evidence of forced abortion. That might just be because the UNFPA was working with local officials to change attitudes towards birth control. Now, if the UNFPA were to withdraw from those projects, it's likely that the old attitudes would return. So: remove funds, get more forced abortions.
During our visits to five of the 32 counties we asked many SFPC officials, doctors of the local hospitals under the Ministry of Health, county administrative officials, and ordinary Chinese in spontaneous/no-notice encounters on the street, in a school, or in factories whether they were aware of any recent coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations. All answered in the negative although some admitted that prior to the joint SFPC/UNFPA program there had been such cases.
Anyway, the State Department team said that the US shouldn't fund Chinese projects simply because the UNFPA has to work within guidelines set by the Chinese government -- even if its work is directly opposed to forced abortion -- but that the $32m should not be withheld from non-Chinese projects. And this decision goes directly in the face of that assessment:
First Finding
We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.
First Recommendation
We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA....
In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices.
UNFPA is being targetted for not being able to stop all coercive abortion in China -- even though its projects, on limited funding, only extend to 32 counties in the country. Which is like saying that the US should be treated as a pariah because abortion-clinic bombers live uncaptured in the mountains, with tacit local support, for many years.
Marie Stopes has a better reputation for providing unbiased care to pregnant women than the Republican party, that's for sure.
Let's be clear on one point though: sanctity of life has nothing to do with Bushco's cynical anti-abortion stance, just as in most cases it has nothing to do with the stance of most anti-abortionists. If this really was the basis of their objections, they actually would care about children after they're born. But they don't, as is evidenced by cuts to HeadStart and trade policies that favor child labor overseas.
It's all about controlling women via controlling reproductive choice. Much easier to control women when you keep them barefoot and pregnant, you know.
The decision is awful and concerning the $15 billion dollar AIDS program there is a stipulation that a third of the funds spent on prevention must be spent on abstinence programs.
I wonder if this is acuarate. Five billion on abstinence programs? What are they doing? Buying chastity belts for everyone?
Yeah, but let one of the twins get knocked up...
George and Barbara should have practiced abstinence or birth control. Both effective, but one is definitely not as much fun.
I believe George and Martha did practice birth control. Doesn't W look like he was strained through a sheet?
The sad part is that most people either support or tolerate Bush's actions. Where's the outrage? Why doesn't this issue make every single editorial page in every single newspaper in the country? Bush is essentially dooming children to death in order to promote his dystopian ideals--why aren't most people up in arms about it? Why aren't they protesting, rioting, making a big deal about it?
I mean, I know the answer (a lackluster educational system; the one-minded media; a tendency for most Americans to think only on the surface of their brains), but I'm still disgusted.
The women of the world send yet another "thanks a lot" to all those 'principled voters' who stated that since there was no appreciable difference between Bush and Gore, they weren't going to be voting for either one of them.
And anyone who says "But... we had no idea he was going to be this bad" is either a liar or a fool.
Let's be clear on one point though: sanctity of life has nothing to do with Bushco's cynical anti-abortion stance
True.
just as in most cases it has nothing to do with the stance of most anti-abortionists.
Bullshit.
Best hope for the future:
somebody will do to Bush what he used to do to frogs, with firecrackers, when he was being 'youthfully indiscretional'
Irony is NOT dead, even though I agree with previous posters it is definitely endangered. As to "Abstinence or else," Senator Waxman's excellent site* gives us a quote that puts it succinctly. Footnote 9 in Waxman's Abstinence category refers to CDC's "Programs That Work." Thanks to Bush that now reads: “Thank you for your interest in Programs that Work (PTW). The CDC has discontinued PTW ..."
*Sorry, I'm total neophyte at this, lost it and have to go back and find the link.
granny, that is good enough to sew on a sampler. Thanks for one of the best laughs of the day.
Aarrggghh, the senior moments seem to be getting closer together. For Senator Waxman, try: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/...ticsandscience/
Yeah, but let one of the twins get knocked up...
What makes you so sure they haven't?
"I believe George and Martha did practice birth control. Doesn't W look like he was strained through a sheet?"
Martha was George WASHINGTON'S wife... BARBARA is W's mother.
"And anyone who says "But... we had no idea he was going to be this bad" is either a liar or a fool."
DID *YOU*???!
Asshat.
In strictly religious terms, the "gag rule" actually makes sense. Abortions are completely inexistant during the biblical ages. Whereas child-slavery, child-killing, even child-sacrifices, are not uncommon (ex: Abraham and Isaac)
Of course, whether or not society revert back to the biblical ages is open to debate.
. . . sanctity of life has nothing to do with . . . the stance of most anti-abortionists.
This isn't really clear-cut. The loudest voices in the anti-abortion crowd are clearly motivated by a desire to mess women over for having sex and whose regard for children is limited to their utility as a punishment for doing it. I don't know if these sick f*cks are the majority--they just seem to have the microphones.
On the other hand, a lot of people who oppose abortion really are concerned about the welfare of what, in their view, is a child. I don't know if they're the majority either--they just seem to be the ones I mostly meet.
Both groups claim to be in the second group. Obviously the first group is lying; you have to back up a bit to see which is which:
You know the first group--they think the only moral reaction to anything having to do with sex or reproduction, however tangential, is hysterics, even if it'll decrease abortions (e.g., making birth control more available) or help those kids they claim to care about (e.g., fully funding Head Start).
But the second group--they're honest people and they tend to be consistant. A girl gets pregnant, they might not want her to get an abortion, but they do want her to get good prenatal care, they support programs for children in general (which they recognise cost money), they generally act like they like kids. Oh yeah . . . and many--maybe most--of 'em are Democrats. (Massachusetts, e.g., has a lot of these folks.)
. . . which is why the abortion debate is so acrimonious--the folks we end up debating are bloodyminded liars, while the normal pro-life crowd stays out of these screaming matches. However, it means the public face of their position is represented by nutcases.
It's in the interested of the grown-ups in this argument to recognise that it's not all black-or-white. It's in the interest of the GOP and their constituancy of sexual hysterics to pretend that it is.
A very perceptive post, Molly, NYC.
While there are certainly some in the anti-choice movement who do actually value human life (that is, they're also anti-war and anti-death penalty), the loudest voices, by far, are also the ones who insist that execution is just peachy, and war is as good a foreign policy as any.
Case in point: Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Seraphiel -- Yes, it's not news that when it comes to folks of the Bushes' ilk, "life" as they define it should only be protected until birth, after which time, it's on its own, and no more help. They don't care if there's a bullet out there waiting for that (unwanted?) child; in some cases (Head Start cuts, "welfare reform," areas of the country where the Milla Tree is the only possible career choice + neverending "war"), they're holding the gun.
Personally, I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, and pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I'm also one of these bastard adoptees -- being an unwanted kid is a terrible thing. I like to ask the real rabid anti-abortion types how many adopted kids they have. The ones who say "none" are the hypocrites.
Assamite, you're damn right I said that it was going to be this bad, many many many times before the election happened. My main issue of concern is reproductive rights, and sadly, I have yet to be surprised (shocked? yes.) by any decisions that Bush has made in this area.
You don't remember people saying that it would be ok if things did get bad, because they had to get worse before they get better? Anyone who made *that* argument must have had some idea that there would be a difference between Bush's governance and Gore's governance, especially about these issues. So, yeah, call me an asshat if you like, but I think you're being pretty disingenuous by doing so. Fortunately for you, you're not the one paying the price for this disingenuousness, are you?
The only reason I brought this up is because to forget history is to repeat it, and I wish to hell I hadn't been as prescient as I seem to have been in this regard. And no, this has nothing to do with 9/11, and everything to do with the Christian Fundamentalist Right - most people who paid attention back then *knew* what their values were, we *knew* which candidate they supported, and the logical outcome of those facts is being played out on multiple fronts, at home and abroad.
2004 is almost upon us - let's not forget what the logical outcome of another four years of Bush will bring, for Americans and for the world.
mortgage arizona loan officer mortgage arizona loan officer mortgage arizona loan officer. auto auto car loan purchase purchase auto auto car loan purchase purchase auto auto car loan purchase purchase.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
