Bush's cruel trip backward

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe Staff, 1/26/2001

RESIDENT BUSH hopes that the distance of the victims across the oceans and the distractions of his domestic proposals, such as education, will allow him a tidy conclusion to his cruelty.

Bush says he will take international aid away from family planning clinics that in any way, shape, or whisper tell women where they can get an abortion. To Bush, this is a game of Ping-Pong, and now he has the paddle. Antichoice Ronald Reagan and Bush's father enforced what abortion rights activists have nicknamed the ''gag rule.'' Prochoice Bill Clinton lifted it.

There were quick flickers of flame from prochoice activists, but no general firestorm of disgust. Bush reinstituted the gag rule with the confidence that, aside from Planned Parenthood, Capitol Hill Democrats will not dwell long - or at all - counting the bodies of poverty stricken and sexually trapped women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Maternal and infant mortality abroad pales next to slapping DNA on Super Bowl footballs to verify their authenticity as memorabilia.

But there will be bodies. In 1995, during Clinton's first term, the United States sent $540 million abroad to family planning clinics. Newt Gingrich's conservative backlash slashed the spending. By early in Clinton's second term, spending was down to $385 million. It has now crept back up to $425 million, barely an increase, considering inflation.

Abroad, the cuts were seen as a violation of the commitment of rich countries to support family planning that came out of the United Nations conference on population in Cairo in 1994. According to the World Health Organization, complications from pregnancy and childbirth kill 600,000 women every year. All but 1 percent of these women come from poor nations. Of the 600,000 deaths, 75,000 are from unsafe, illegal abortions.

Those who know the least bit about family planning know that comprehensive programs ultimately lead to fewer, not more abortions. Bush's ignorance or cynicism is underscored by the fact that one of the growing international success stories is the nation he claims to know about, Mexico. The abortion rate in Mexico City, in an era of significantly more widespread contraceptive counseling services, has fallen from 41 per 1,000 women in the mid-1980s to 25 per 1,000 in the 1990s.

Bush said, ''It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad.'' His decision will defeat his own political purpose. Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million, the following would happen:

Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.

There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages, and 2.2 million fewer abortions each year.

There would be 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.

Bush, in a statement read on Monday to those protesting the 28th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision protecting the right to an abortion, said, ''We share a great goal: to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected by law.'' To date, he has said nothing about the 15,000 women who may have died each year since Republicans slashed international funding. He says the Declaration of Independence should include the unborn in America, but he has said nothing about the 92,000 dead infants a year abroad who may be a victim of the myopic policies of Republican congressional leadership.

Bush is trading away even more than the lives and rights of pregnant women in developing nations. He is trading away American credibility. Developing countries increasingly link family planning to economic development and increasingly see safe abortions as one of the options, however troubling, that a woman must have. Abortion transcends political and religious boundaries. Egypt, Nigeria, Mexico, Bangladesh, Lithuania, and Turkey all have about the same rate of abortion as the United States.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 28, 2001

Answers

Coup, would bet there are members here who would glady match your donation for this cause. Which charity is your favorite?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), January 28, 2001.

Charity is a drop in the bucket compared to all the social spending conducted by the government. The total assets (as opposed to merely the income from endowments) of America's 34,000 foundations add up to only about 10 percent of current government expenditures for social welfare and related domestic programs.

To replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold.

Which raises an interesting point: conservatives bitterly assail the federal government for making them pay taxes to help the poor. Why, then, would they turn around and happily surrender an equal amount to charity?

The answer, of course, is that they would not. Once conservatives are freed from their obligation to help the needy, charitable donations will continue to languish as they always have.

-- Laurence Duggan (dugganlau@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.

I'm a lot more interested in making sure socialist assholes have fewer means to plan other peoples lives.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

KofE, I'm not commenting on anything but you here - why do you think anyone here is socialist? It's like you're some 75 year-old crackpot who thinks that socialism or communism makes any difference to anybody any more.

We're all Americans, (mostly), posting here. And capitalists. Some of us, successful. Get over your little commie/socialist fetish.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Bemused,

Don't be too hard on KoFE, for he speaks the truth. You need not look any farther than two posts above your own to see a shining example of socialism on this forum. Comrade Laurence Duggan stated, and I quote,

"Once conservatives are freed from their obligation to help the needy, charitable donations will continue to languish as they always have".

The bold emphasis was to point out exactly the sort of socialist thinking that occurs on this forum.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 28, 2001.

J:

Are you worried about socialists? They're like the Amish now. Let them have their little enclaves, they may be able to teach us something, maybe, if we want them to.

Truth is, socialist and communists don't even really count North of Cuba any more. If you think they do, then, well... I don't even know what to say. Good luck with that.

The rest of us care more about what's happening on Iraq, or N. Korea, or Columbia. Find a common thread there when you get a chance. It's not socialism or communism.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

Bemused,

Of course I am worried about socialists in America, aren't you?

If I could just get the Feinsteins, Schumers, Clintons, et al, to stay in a little enclave somewhere then they wouldn't bother me much at all. However, they never seem to be content with building there little utopian commune, they always seem to want to run for office, and then pass laws to infect the rest of the country, as well.

Oh, in case you are confused, they don't call themselves socialists or communists much anymore, but you will find them easily enough if you look in the Democrat Party. If you don't see them at first glance, look to the left, they are there.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 28, 2001.

Our obligation to help the needy is not a socialist doctrine. It comes from the world's greatest religious traditions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, which all stress the importantance of our moral obligation to help the needy.

Since the hard right is Christian, you think they'd agree. But they're not really Christian. Like J above, they are selfish materialists bent on letting the poor suffer and starve.

-- Hypocritcal Christians (let@them.die), January 28, 2001.

How did we get from trying to defend the practice of slaughtering the unborn; to accusing those who won't engage in such a disgusting act of being heartless? Another social engineer speaks......

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

J:

Oh My God.

You really think this way?

Dude, we won. No-one came in a close second.

You don't need to hate "commies" any more. There are no legit commies.

If you think differently, then you yourself are suspect and you'll find out what I learned to do in northen hockey schools... (check hard, look for the knockout, and ask questions later :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 28, 2001.

People that have been completely brainwashed always swear they haven't.

www.dsausa.org

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

This one's worth the effort.

www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html

Traitors against the Republic.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), January 28, 2001.

Anyone care to confirm/contest/dispute this quotation from the Globe article:

Those who know the least bit about family planning know that comprehensive programs ultimately lead to fewer, not more abortions.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.

ohhhhh how inconvenient--ssomebody party'd &got pregnant messed around had there fun-so the baby has too pay innocent blood -shed. no big-deal-------------not so sure about that!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), January 29, 2001.

Hypocritical Christians,

Why does it not surprise me that I have never seen your handle before today? Did you get your hat handed to you in a previous debate and now are too ashamed to use your old handle?

I am a Christian; but in regards to things political, I am more of a Libertarian than a Republican.

You are correct that we have a moral obligation to help each other, but it is not government's job to legislate morality. When the government steps in to force the population to give to the needy, it is socialism, plain and simple.

Isn't it the liberal left that is always screaming about the separation of church and state? I guess you only feel that way when you are trying to keep God out of the public schools, not when you are trying to use God as justification for a socialist wealth distribution scheme.

As a Christian, I am called by God to help the truly needy; as a freedom loving American, I think that it is an atrocity that the government takes such a large chunk of productive citizens incomes, and then wastes it by giving it to those who are able to, and yet choose not to, work. With our current welfare system, there is little accountability, and what little accountability that there is comes mostly from recently enacted welfare reform.

How many times would you give money to a drug addicted child before you realized that he was spending it on cocaine instead of the rent? Or similarly, how many generations of unwed mother led families would you support until you realized your solution was making the problem worse?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

Hypo, Are you as stupid as your post indicates? Geez, the world has its share of stupid people, and you're making sure that this forum has its share also. Christians believe in charity. But just as our founding fathers, that our gov shouldn't be dispensing tax dollars for it.

I'll bet that you have never ever volunteered for anything or helped any one in a time of need. I'll bet that you have never ever given anything to another person, eye to eye. Just a guess here.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

Maria & J,

Gee, kind of defensive, aren't we? I wonder why. Could it be because I'm right, that you hard-right creeps don't give a rat's ass about the poor and the starving, the people who need help?

I thought so.

As for my giving, I hand out dollars to the people in rags on the streets of my city. You call that "America," a fine country where people just have to get by on charity and handouts -- I call it shameful that we even have so many homeless people on the streets. I see them every day. It's heart breaking. And all you far- right assholes want to do is cut your taxes, save your own frigid skin while you moralize and justify Bush killing thousands of poverty stricken women and babies oversees.

And you're Christian?

I didn't think so.

-- Preaching Hard Right Hypocrites (bush@will.pay), January 29, 2001.

Oh, and one more thing, Maria. Yeah, I look 'em in the eyes. These are people who can barely talk because of mental derangement or poverty or hunger or physical pain or whatever. A guy approached me last week dressed completely in rags, head to foot. He's missing a leg and gets around on one crutch. He's a wreck -- totally dirty, filthy. When I gave him a dollar I looked him in the eyes and he looked into mine.

Guess what, Maria? He's human. His eyes reflected pain and suffering.

And what do you do, Maria, if you're ever climb out of your comfortable heated car? You'd run across the street if you saw this guy approach you.

Just a guess.

I'll bet you're really looking forward to Bush's huge tax cuts.

Enjoy, Maria and J! Buy some new shoes! And just ignore those filthy street people -- it's their own fault! Let the poor and the suffering eat cake!

-- Preaching Hypocrites! (gop@will.pay), January 29, 2001.

One damn thing IS for sure...

IF and I say IF I had it my way.....

American would STOP sending my fu$$king money to overseas and other countries....PERIOD

For the reason stated above, we have 'countless' many here going hungry. That PISSES me off in & of itself, but the USA bailing out all others is beyond Fuc*ed up.

MHO, hopping off soap box.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 29, 2001.

Dear Hypo (and your many other anon names),

As previously stated by Maria and J, your credibility is questioned by your reluctance to post under the same handle more than once. I suspect you are a ‘known’ participant on this forum and have been discredited in the past. Who cares? Nobody really ‘knows’ you anyway so why bother with the ‘name a minute’ routine?

I’ve spent a good deal of time around the ‘down-and –out’ community and there is a common thread with these people….Drugs, Alcohol, and Gambling addictions. Throw in a variety of criminal behaviors and you have the core reason that most of them are homeless and destitute. Yes, there are some that are victims of circumstances beyond their control but for the most part these people have driven themselves to this hellhole of an existence. We should also include the mentally ill that should be institutionalized but somehow get kicked out into the ‘street life’ as ‘cured’.

What you would like is for hard working American’s to support these loser’s who have shown no desire to change their lives or pull themselves up from the sewer. I’ll give you my take on that in two words…..Fuck That! If you were not so ignorant the reality of the situation would cause you to pause the next time you handed out a five spot for someone’s next ‘fix’ or a bottle of MD20-20.

President Bush will instill programs for assistance that will come with demands for personal responsibility….what a unique concept aye? If that disturbs you so much than sell you’re friggin’ house and move in with these poor folks and raise them up. Oh, don’t forget to write once in a while and let us know how your good work is progressing.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 29, 2001.

Hypo, for the record, I have looked them in the eye. I volunteer at soup kitchens and donate time, money and food. Would *you* run them over in *your* heated car? Just because I want my tax $ spent on other things, you think I'm not charitable, even criminal using my car as a weapon.

The gov has no business doing this. They do a poor job at every thing they do. Charity is up to *individuals*, not the gov. Absofuckinlutely, give me back my tax dollars!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 2001.

Whining liberal,

I am not defensive at all. Could it be that you misread my tone because your mind is so polluted by liberal thinking that you no longer retain reasonable cognitive capabilities?

I thought so.

Why are there homeless on the streets? Doesn't the all-knowing government already spend countless millions on social programs each year? Those homeless can't be a sign that government social programs don't work, could they? Well, they are just that to those of us who can think rationally.

And you're rational?

I didn't think so.



Oh, by the way, I am really looking forward to Bush's huge tax cuts.

What I do with my extra money is no business of yours. Here's a hint though, I will probably use some of it to support the campaigns of those who best represent my beliefs in government.

Doesn't that just make your day.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

Where are your tax dollars going next?

http://www.newsday.com/ap/topnews/ap837.htm

Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

by SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday he will tap religious institutions for more charitable work, confronting critics who say using public money for such programs could violate the wall between church and state. ''Compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government,'' he said.

Bush established a White House office that would distribute billions of dollars to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. The president said such groups grapple daily with ''deep needs and real suffering'' in communities, and deserve a chance to compete for taxpayer money for after-school programs, prison ministries and drug treatment, among other things.

''Government will never be replaced by charities and community groups,'' Bush said. ''Yet when we see social needs in America, my administration will look first to faith-based programs. ... We will not discriminate against them.''

The president signed two executive orders, one to establish a White House office of religion-based community initiatives, and the other instructing five Cabinet-level agencies to create entities to work with religious groups. Bush said he issued the second order to clear barriers ''that make private groups hesitant to work with government.''

To build support, Bush will meet throughout the week with leaders of spiritual and charitable groups and he plans to attend the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.

Bush chose University of Pennsylvania political science professor John J. DiIulio Jr. to head the office. He tapped former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith to serve on the board of the Corporation for National Service, which will work with the new White House office. Bush said both men will report directly to him.

Skeptics say shifting government money to churches, synagogues and mosques so they can expand assistance programs raises church-state separation questions. Even some churches are wary of government money that might come with strings attached.

DiIulio, Goldsmith and other supporters brushed aside such questions when they spoke with reporters after Bush's announcement

''It's proven that when there's a faith component to social services, it brings about a greater opportunity and a greater percentage (chance) that that person's going to be changed from the inside out, as opposed to from outside in,'' said the Rev. Herbert Lusk, who attended Monday's meeting. Lusk endorsed Bush at the Republican National Convention.

Striking pre-emptively at critics, Bush said religious groups must be part of the solution to society's ills.

''A compassionate society is one which recognizes the great power of faith,'' Bush said last week. ''We in government must not fear faith- based programs, we must welcome faith-based programs.''

Bush also met Monday with top aides to discuss a long-range national energy policy and announced formation of a task force to attack supply shortages. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former energy company executive, will head the panel. It will also include several Cabinet members, though the president did not announce its exact composition.

Bush reiterated that California's power crunch is a state problem, not a federal one. But he said he was concerned about the energy shortage spreading to other Western states, as well as the impact of high energy prices on consumers throughout the nation.

The panel will study U.S. reliance on foreign petroleum and expanding pipeline capacity, he said, promising to act ''boldly and swiftly'' on short- and long-term answers.

On Sunday, Cheney again hinted that the administration would explore easing environmental regulations that have hindered building new power generators. ''California's probably the toughest state in the country today in which to build a power plant,'' he said on ''Fox News Sunday.''

Bush also was dispatching top energy officials to meet with governors of Western states affected by the crunch.

The new president opened his term last week with a strong emphasis on education, an area where he has both expertise and strong support for change.

This week, however, he is stepping into thornier issues -- California's power crunch, the divisive religion-based action initiative and his plan to provide prescription drugs to seniors through the Medicare program. He was expected to send the plan to Capitol Hill on Monday.

Bush, borrowing elements of a congressional Republican plan, pledged to revamp the entire Medicare program, giving senior citizens a choice of health plans, including some that offer drug coverage.

But Bush said this overhaul would not take effect for four years. In the meantime, he would give states money to help low-income seniors pay for drugs.

Critics question the wisdom of creating a new web of programs that may disappear four years later. They also argue that once created, the grants would be hard to stop after four years.

-- (where@re.your tax dollars going), January 29, 2001.

Sure, Barry, sumer, J, Maria --- take your tax cut and enjoy your new shoes.

How do they fit? Are they smooth and shiny? Do they smell nice?

Oh, and about those 92,000 dead babies -- just ignore them. They're not American, so it doesn't matter.

-- Shining Hypocrisy (kill@foreign.babies.com), January 29, 2001.

Like a glove, rough and natural, for a day or so.

No problem, I already have.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 29, 2001.

Sure, Barry, sumer, J, Maria --- take your tax cut and enjoy your new shoes. How do they fit? Are they smooth and shiny? Do they smell nice?

Oh, and about those 92,000 dead babies -- just ignore them. They're not American, so it doesn't matter.

Yo you unadulterated ASSHOLE. Yeah you.

Talk about a hypocrit, talk bout judging?

Tell me....where have I professed to be a christian?

thnk you.

Tell me, how is it you know me so well again, see I forgot?

Let me fill ya in just a wee bit okay you MORON?

My personal life and spending habits are noneya.

But let me impart a lil tidbit for you....Most posters dont even know this about me.

1. I do not believe in abortion, never have. As a matter of fact I used to volunteer at Birthright a NON-profit pro life type of place, we offered FREE pregnancy testing.

I used to give over 9,000 per year to the church, let me see you top that fuc*head judgemental sob that you are.

I volunteered for those who were in nursing homes and could not get out due to disabilities.

When was the last time you ever went to a dying persons bedside and held their hand?

I could go on and on, but seeing as tho you know me so well, look me up in your CRYSTAL FUC*ing KNEECAP, ok?

fwiw.....and it isnt much.....I strongly suggest you go back and re- read my post.

Passes the moron some reading glasses....

Here ya go you judgemental SOB.

Now you know 'how' to piss me off, simply dont read the post and PRETEND you are in my head.

GET IT?

GOT IT?

GOOD.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 29, 2001.

Whining liberal,

There are not 92,000 dead babies.

Just because some left-wing "research" institute with an obvious agenda projects that there will be, does not make it true. You obviously believe it, but we of a more rational nature do not.

For sake of argument, let's say that 92,000 is a correct number. How many children were aborted last year under these programs? I would venture a guess that it is a far cry higher than 92,000. 500,000 maybe? A million?

Take a deep breath. Wipe the spittle off of your mouth, and rationally (if possible) do the math. Even at only 500,000 abortions last year under these programs, that is 408,000 more LIVE babies, not 92,000 more dead babies.

Get it?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

Maybe the Boston Globe numbers weren't clear:

600,000 deaths

And you call yourselves "Christians."

-- Enjoy Your New Shoes, Creeps! (GOP@hypocrites.com), January 29, 2001.

J, you seem to have a problem with facts. If funding was restored, there would be 2.2 million fewer abortions each year.

If you really cared about abortion, you'd support the funding.

-- Where's Your Head? (up@your.arse), January 29, 2001.

Whining liberal,

Yes, 600,000 deaths was clear.

I am a Christian.

Your point was again?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

Yet another fleeting handle,

Once again: The projections of a left-wing "research" institute are not facts .

Your comment does bring up one point. My estimate of the number of abortions performed under these programs was way too low. There were obviously at least 2.2 million abortions performed under these programs last year. Possibly 3, or even 4 million were likely performed.

I wonder how they are going to perform anywhere near that many without U.S. dollars?

The obvious answer is that they will not.

I suggest that you learn to think critically for yourself, it will do wonders for how you grasp reality in the world.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 29, 2001.

Dennis, J, or whoever you're claiming to be today,

If I were you, I wouldn't be in such a hurry to throw stones at people who use different handles.

-- People Judge You By... (thecompany@you.keep), January 29, 2001.

Oh, so now the Boston Globe was a "left wing research" institute.

Thanks for more stupidity, J. You're just another one of those seething moralists who can't "walk his talk."

-- Incredible Hypocrisy Here (from@j.com), January 29, 2001.

Hey whoever you are. Since you seem to have so much faith that government can solve problems better than charities let me ask you a simple question.

If you had $1000 that you wanted to use to help the homeless, would you give it to Habitat for Humanity, or would you give it to HUD?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Hey Unk, I think what we have here is another foaming mouth liberal that would oppose ANY programs brought forth by the Bush administration. The total lack of insight and inability to post as ‘itself’ speaks volumes. Unlike the scumbag before him, President Bush WILL do good work and not leave us with a bad taste in our mouths. The people that make this country great are the hard working taxpayers that have been stomped on for too damn long. To the bum on the corner that proclaims he will ‘work for food’, I say show me. I work hard for mine and I’m fucking tired of giving it away to support the dregs of our society.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 29, 2001.

President Bush WILL do good work and not leave us with a bad taste in our mouths

No pun intended I'm sure.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

People Judge You By,

It is interesting to note that you have been around this and predecessor fora long enough to know of the incorrect claims that I am Dennis Olson. However, it is also interesting to note that your current handle did not appear until quite some time after that. This, of course, begets the questions: what was your previous handle, and what event caused you to abandon your old one?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 30, 2001.

Barry I hope you understand the guy on the corner is very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

What I am sick of is Corporate ripoffs and the like. Folks who take wild risks under the cover of legal entity and then leave the taxpayer holding the bag when their hairbrain schemes implode.

Take Cali, do you think all them illegals just happened? Who benefits from a steady supply of cheap unrepresented labor? Who ultimately pays for this? Average honest working stiffs in the form of lower wages, higher taxes, and lower quality goods and services for his shrinking dollar is who. Quality of life goes down and all leads to infrastructure overload and decline. Is this not SoCal?

Yep we are all sick of the "will work for food" crap. But this again is not the problem.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), January 30, 2001.

Whining liberal,

"More stupidity"?

I believe that it would be hard for you to have much more stupidity. You are so stupid now that you can't even understand that the Boston Globe didn't do any actual research; they merely parroted projections from the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Read the article again. Read it very slowly if that helps your comprehension. When you figure it out, come back here and apologize to me for your "stupidity" comment.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 30, 2001.

Well Unk, it would seem that I’ve missed a great opportunity to take credit for a pun aye? BTW, your HTML skills have progressed quite well. Can animation be far behind:>)

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 30, 2001.

Doc,

You know what it is -- the old "maximize profits, socialize losses." According to Bushit & Co., it's okay to keep profits to yourself, but when there's a crisis, socialism works just fine.

See California and other western states for illustration.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 30, 2001.

By the way, "J," in reading this over, it looks like you questioned the legitimacy of the 92,000 dead infants figure. That's a World Health Organization number. But then, that's another "left wing research institute," right? (laughter)

I don't think anyone owes you an apology, J. You're the kind of asshole who would rather see his own daughter maimed and mangled in a botched back-alley operation than admit that birth control and family planning causes LESS abortions than more.

You and all the other far right idiots bought right into this travesty and now you won't admit you've been duped again -- the facts prove that Bush is effectively ordering the deaths of thousands of women and babies.

You want other links and statistics, Jerk? Because if the Boston Globe is too "lefty" for you, I can provide lots more that prove this point. But that would be boring, wouldn't it? And you wouldn't read them anyway -- no matter who the source, no matter how legitimate, no matter how many times it's been researched or fact-checked, anything that goes against your sadistic and medieval notions of "women and children" would be "left wing."

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 30, 2001.

Coup2k,

Your reading comprehension skills are as bad as Whining liberal's. It is no wonder that you buy into such hare- brained socialist claptrap: you don't even understand that which you read. Chalk it up to the public indoctrination system, I guess.

As I told your ideological brother, Whining liberal, reread the article. Read it very slowly if that helps your comprehension. When you figure out your mistake, then you can come back and try to refute my claims. How can we have a discussion when you can't even figure out which organization has supplied which numbers?

I am not holding my breath waiting for an apology. Before you or your ilk would apologize, I assume that you would first have to understand that you were wrong. Considering the appalling reading comprehension skills demonstrated by you and Whining liberal, I have great doubts as to whether either of you two have the capability of figuring out that you are wrong.

I have never claimed that birth control causes more abortions, clueless one. I am, however, smart enough (unlike some posters on this thread) to know that eliminating funding for abortions causes fewer abortions, not more abortions. Propaganda claims from Planned Parenthood, et al, notwithstanding, of course.



p.s. It may be helpful for you to have someone else read the article and then explain what it means to you. Good luck.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 30, 2001.

Gee J, I guess you really are quite dimwitted. The whole point of this article (and plenty more if you want 'em), is that this cuts off funding for FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES in poor countries. That causes MORE ABORTIONS.

How much clearer can this be? Let's try again.

1. Birth control prevents pregnancy.

2. Bush has cut off all funding that would support family planning in poor nations so that women could obtain and use birth control.

3. Without birth control, more women will become pregant.

4. Therefore, more unwanted pregnancies will result in MORE ABORTIONS.

Is this clear enough for you? If not, perhaps you should return to school and take a refresher course in kindergarten logic.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 30, 2001.

Coup2k,

The whole point of this article is to spew more abortion propaganda, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to see that. You probably think that it is an unbiased piece of journalistic integrity. Let me outline the reality of the situation for you.

1. Birth control does indeed prevent pregnancy.

2. Abortion is the killing of babies, not birth control.

3. Bush will deny funding to any and all family planning clinics that advocate abortion as birth control.

4. Those family planning clinics that formerly advocated aborting babies as birth control will now, when faced with loss of funding, stop advocating abortion as birth control.

5. Therefore, with fewer family planning clinics advocating abortion as birth control, there will be fewer abortions.

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not, but I don't know how to make it any simpler. Maybe if you say the words aloud as you read them, it will help.

By the way, are you still holding on to your claim that the 92,000 dead infants figure came from the World Health Organization?

LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 30, 2001.

Interesting. We have one claim that Bush's policy will increase the number of abortions where that policy applies, and one claim that it will decrease that number. Both claims are supported by at least somewhat plausible argument and explanation.

Now, you'd think all we need to do is sit back, collect good data, and observe which (if either) turns out to be more correct. Sounds easy, right?

Never happen, for several reasons. The positions taken are NOT empirical, they are both religious. Data won't be collected, if collected they won't be examined, and if examined they won't be believed. This is one of those situations where both sides are right by *definition*, not observation.

Also, in real life things are never that clean. Clinics are unlikely to change their programs, because that's now how these policies are implemented. In reality, specific clinics have been targeted to lose funding, and that's what will happen *regardless* of any changes at those clinics, except for one -- to close down, and open up a new one down the block with a different name and different nominal policies. So a clinic called "planned parenthood" closes, and a new one opens called "Our Lady of Pain Counseling", which gets the funding.

But the new clinic is the same people doing the same things, but keeping slightly different records, offering differently worded advise, etc. The number of abortions provided does not change in fact, but is reduced to zero on paper. And a bit more of the funding than before goes to paying off the inspectors, who can always use the money and who are sympathetic to what needs to be done anyway, being locals.

Legislating morality always backfires, and the funding only purchases cheating and lying when you try it. And both sides can point to their own version of fabricated data as "proof" they were right all along. And people continue to do what they want, and what they must.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 30, 2001.

1. Birth control does indeed prevent pregnancy.

Great! So you admit it does. If it prevents pregnancy, then that means there's no abortion because there's no pregnancy.

2. Abortion is the killing of babies, not birth control.

I never said abortion was birth control. Abortion stems from not having access to birth control, or from birth control that fails.

3. Bush will deny funding to any and all family planning clinics that advocate abortion as birth control.

Bush will deny funding to any and all family planning clinics that advocate birth control, which prevents abortion.

4. Those family planning clinics that formerly advocated aborting babies as birth control will now, when faced with loss of funding, stop advocating abortion as birth control.

They never DID advocate abortion as birth control! They advocated birth control as a means to prevent abortion and pregnancy!

5. Therefore, with fewer family planning clinics advocating abortion as birth control, there will be fewer abortions.

Again, they are NOT advocating abortion as birth control. They were advocating birth control as a means to prevent abortion.

You think it's "clever" to mix birth control with abortion, but they're two totally separate things. One term (birth control) prevents the other (abortion).

You can keep twisting logic and merge terms and definitions, J., but your twisted logic just goes to prove you how twisted your mind and "morality" are.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 30, 2001.

Coup -- why even bother trying to reason with J? He (or she) obviously can't be bothered with facts. Your argument is sound, and you're right its just kindergarten logic. But trying to argue with a religious fanatic is like trying to argue with a 2 year old. J is not even at kindergarten level. When it comes to abortion his reasoning is at the daycare level.

Why bother? He's wasting all our time and especially yours.

-- auntie EM (e@m.com), January 30, 2001.

Coup2k,

Twice now you have either lied, or been wrong about a point that is critical to our discussion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that you are mistaken, and not lying. You (incorrectly) stated:

"2. Bush has cut off all funding that would support family planning in poor nations so that women could obtain and use birth control".

"Bush will deny funding to any and all family planning clinics that advocate birth control, which prevents abortion".

Bush has done no such thing. Read the article that you posted. It said, "Bush said he will take international aid away from family planning clinics that in any way, shape, or whisper tell women where they can get an ABORTION (emhasis mine).

Do you understand what this means? It really is very simple, and it has nothing to do with birth control, and everything to do with abortion. It means that if a clinic does not advocate abortion, then they will continue to receive U.S. funding for their family planning clinic, where they can readily tell poor women about birth control. You appear to be under the impression that Bush has just denied U.S. funding for all foreign family planning clinics. This is not only not what is happening, but it isn't even what the article in the very liberal Boston Globe says is happening.

I fully understand that "birth control" and "abortion" are two totally separate things. I have twisted neither logic, nor terms, nor definitions. The bottom line is that you are very confused. I highly suggest that you clear your mind of any preconceived notions of what your article says, and read it again. You should find that you are arguing from an untenable position that has not the least basis in reality.



auntie EM,

Oh great scholarly one, instead of labeling me as a "religious fanatic," and likening me to a 2 year old in daycare, why don't you bless the forum with your superior debating skills and show us all where I am in error. Please expound on your (ha ha) position, because so far what you have posted is completely worthless in furthering the discussion at hand.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 31, 2001.

Here you go, J, more "kindergarten" logic. Not that you'll understand, or even be able to understand -- you've proved that you cannot understand simple logic. But this puts it so simply most eight- year-olds can grasp it. Of course, in your "mind" the Denver Post is a "left wing research institute"(laughter)...

From the Denver Post:

Jan. 24, 2001 - Nobody likes abortions - not the women who have them nor the activists who believe in a woman's right to choose. Yet the most adamant anti-abortion activists were rejoicing Monday when President Bush instituted a ban that likely will spur even more abortions in Third World countries.

Bush banned federal aid from international organizations that perform or "actively promote" abortion as a family planning method.

Yet those are the same groups that promote birth control so women can avoid abortions. And because illegal abortions are rampant in Third World countries, those organizations cannot eliminate abortion discussions from their services.

Such groups must be able to counsel women who are seeking illegal abortions. Without such counsel, many women die during illegal abortions - and many don't learn about family planning methods that can make abortion unnecessary.

The only way to stem the high rate of abortions in such countries is to make family planning readily available. But when the U.S. strips money from family planning groups, it also strips hope that Third World women will have access to birth control.

So Bush's action, while oddly satisfying to anti-abortion forces, ironically guarantees that abortions will continue to increase.

Opponents denounced it as an "international gag rule" on discussion of abortions, a move that would be unconstitutional if imposed in the United States.

Yet some anti-abortion activists even question why the U.S. should provide any family planning to foreign countries. "I'm not sure it's an effective use of our tax dollars ...- " said Chuck Gosnell, president of the Colorado Christian Coalition.

The Post, however, has historically upheld the need to support worldwide family planning - not only to save women from horrible deaths, but also to quell the population explosion in impoverished nations.

Using tax dollars to prevent unwanted pregnancies is far more cost- effective than spending huge sums to feed starving populations who remain unenlightened about family planning.

We deeply regret Bush's action Monday, and we urge the administration to reconsider the ultimate effects of such a ban.

-- Coup2k (thanks@pubs!.com), January 31, 2001.

President ignored consequences

MICHELE FRY: COLUMNIST

ON THE FIRST official business day of his presidency, on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, George W. Bush attacked abortion rights. He's started with U.S. money on foreign shores. Aid that goes to family-planning and pregnancy-prevention can no longer go to agencies that use their own money for abortions or even abortion discussion.

Let's be clear here: They do not use money from the United States toward abortions; we do not pay for abortions in foreign lands. It's been illegal for nearly three decades. So Bush is pulling funding for teaching sex education, for teaching contraception and for providing contraception.

He had made it a part of our foreign policy to dictate what people, groups and governments outside of our boundaries can say and how they spend their money. It is ridiculous to make other peoples kowtow to an issue that even in our own country remains so volatile, upon which there is no agreement. To threaten these funds disregards the extreme problems other countries are facing. It disregards the difficulties that families, and women in particular, in underdeveloped nations face in trying to survive from day to day.

When making ends meet with three children is a struggle, a fourth child could devastate a family economically.

Family planning is the answer. It is what is needed before a pregnancy occurs. It is what prevents the desire for an abortion. It is what prevents stupid or desperate measures -- hangers and chemical ingestion for instance -- when legal and safe abortion is unavailable. Preventing pregnancy prevents abortion.

These are not the girls Bush knew back in his All-American fraternity- cheerleader days, flaunting their sexual freedom, unthinkingly ignoring the consequences of their choices and using abortion as birth control.

Our new president seems unaware of cultures where girls are treated as property, used to pay off debt, like chips at a poker table. Where they are objects for sex; raped not wooed. Where they have little or no choice regarding their virginity or their abstinence.

If he is unaware of that, then he certainly does not know the power and self-worth a woman gains by being able to control if or when she will have a child. He is probably unaware of the courage it takes to make the effort or how important it is for the means to be available when the courage comes.

He seems unaware of the global population explosion in some curves of the world that a little education could begin to curb.

He seems to be unaware of the devastation of AIDS in Africa and Asia. His gauntlet thrown down against abortion will also stop the education and the condoms meant to slow the spread of HIV.

How ironic is it that Bush could not devise this kind of stranglehold, enact this kind of blackmail, in the United States because our constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

But he can gag countries and prevent their planned parenthood agencies and doctors from providing information about a patent's medical options. Or they can stop taking our money. Yes, they do have a choice, but it is not a choice they should have to make.

Bush's reasons for doing this are all wrong. People have said -- and he said -- this was something he promised to do and now he's done it. One might wonder when he made this vow. Some time between the pseudo-controversy of bureaucRATS and the DWI probably.

Perhaps he wasn't clear and mangled some words when he made this promise. Maybe we were distracted by "subliminable" messages. Whatever he said is hard to verify. But it is clear that he evaded questions and serious discussion about abortion during the campaign, to the point that some thought it would be easy to label him pro- choice.

He said so little that many were lulled into a sense of complacency believing he would do nothing to alter abortion laws. He was so convincing when he talked about no litmus tests that again, we may have been mislead.

Perhaps he will choose people because they are skilled or honest or, as is his favorite description, good people, but they may just happen to be anti-abortion folks as well. John Ashcroft is the perfect example of that.

As knowledgeable and honorable as he may be regarding following the law, he is strongly opposed to abortion and that can easily factor into his decisions. This can't be believed to be a coincidence in Bush's choice.

We, however, are supposed to admire Bush because he keeps his word and does what he says. I would admire him more if he carefully considered what he was saying and doing.

Fry is an editorial writer and a member of the Times editorial board.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), January 31, 2001.

No issue comes to mind that has divided the populace like abortion. For the most part, there is NO middle ground and NO compromising…..The passions run hot and the emotions are heavy. Each side is certain that they are in the right, and no amount of rhetoric will convince them otherwise. I have reached the point where I refuse to participate in discussions on abortion…. the sermons have all been said. I make an exception when MY money is sent out of this country to support either side of the issue.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 31, 2001.

Barry I wholeheartedly agree w/you. That is why if you read my post above you will note, I've not, to my knowledge ever given my stance regarding the subject.

I take issue with the fact that America bails out every country and we have starving children right here.

Charity begins at HOME, here in the USA....then we can worry bout the rest.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 31, 2001.

Margeret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, racist and eugenicist.

Sanger

-- (Hitler@koncentration.kampen), January 31, 2001.

Coup2k,

Your debating skills are truly horrendous. You have refuted exactly NONE of my points. Not one.

You have proven exactly NONE of your points. Not one.

You have been proven wrong time and time again. The best that you have done is to babble on about how juvenile my logic skills are (while you exhibit skills that are far inferior to mine), and then cut and paste some opinion piece into the thread and claim that it is fact.

It is nearly impossible to debate with someone who is so ignorant of the concept of debate. I fully expect you to post, "I know you are, but what am I?" at any moment. I will attempt one last time to engage you in the discussion of facts .

1. Are you still claiming that the 92,000 dead infants figure is from the World Health Organization?

2. You stated, "Bush will deny funding to any and all family planning clinics that advocate birth control, which prevents abortion". Since, by definition, a family planning clinic advocates birth control, do you still stand by the statement that Bush will deny funding to all family planning clinics?

Please do not answer this post with yet another ad hominem attack, and/or yet another liberal opinion piece. Please try to address only the facts .

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 31, 2001.