Comments on: Global Gag Rule extended

Global Gag Rule extended

XQUZYPHYR — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:08:52 -0800

"Global Gag Rule" extended. The Mexico City Policy now applies to AIDS relief: reversing a previous 2003 exemption, the Bush Administration has linked $193 million in AIDS grants to Kenya with its policy of forbidding any funding, or provision of information, about abortion services in exchange for U.S. funds. In Kenya, complications from illegal abortions are a leading killer of married women in their 20s and 30s.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:41:52 -0800

Uganda: 'Abstinence-Only' Programs Hijack AIDS Success Story U.S.-Sponsored HIV Strategy Threatens Youth (London, March 30, 2005)—U.S.-funded "abstinence-only" programs are jeopardizing Uganda's successful fight against HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch said in a new report today. Abstinence-only programs deny young people information about any method of HIV prevention other than sexual abstinence until marriage. Link to PR, report

By: my sock puppet account

my sock puppet account — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:51:12 -0800

Why make sound policy to help people when you can score quick, political points with your base?

By: raedyn

raedyn — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:52:06 -0800

This is stupid and awful, but compeltly unsurprising from this administration.

By: nkyad

nkyad — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:56:21 -0800

On related news, earlier this year Brazil turned down a U$ 48 million grant from USAID for DST education/prevention programs because the USAID insisted that prostitutes (a very high risk and fragile group) should be excluded from any action promoted with that money. The programs were not cancelled and are being financed in full by the Brazilian government. I can't help wondering how the USA's Fundamentalist Christian government managed to exclude compassion from their list of Christian attributes.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:14:49 -0800

Well, Jesus never hung out with hookers, dontcha know. /sarcasm

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:49:35 -0800

I do believe that's flip-flopping. I look forward to the Republican-led attack ads.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:02:52 -0800

Abstinence education, independent of HIV infection rates, fails miserably. This is statistical fact. Education about birth control has been statistically demonstrated to work successfully to reduce HIV and other STD rates in Africa and SE Asia. It's sad that we need women to die once again in order to reaffirm what science and rational thought have taught us.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:20:10 -0800

Why should foreign policy be different from domestic? It's evil shit but it is the same evil shit they fling locally.

By: londonmark

londonmark — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:22:14 -0800

Nice one George. I don't know as much about AIDS in Africa as a I should, but I understand women who contract HIV sometimes have little choice in the matter of intercourse. A lot of good abstincence will do them.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:31:28 -0800

To try and introduce some optimism into this, read this story in today's Globe and Mail outlining the ongoing public trials of a topical vaginal microbicide which promises to cut the rates of HIV-1 infection while allowing for conception. Let's see the fundies block this one.

By: leftcoastbob

leftcoastbob — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:33:08 -0800

docgonzo: Do you really think the fundies won't try to block it???

By: iamck

iamck — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:39:27 -0800

Can someone provide a logical argument in favor of the administration policy? Dios?

By: b_thinky

b_thinky — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:50:10 -0800

Can someone provide a logical argument in favor of the administration policy? Cuz abortion is like, murder??? Duh!

By: Space Kitty

Space Kitty — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:52:19 -0800

. (for all the women's lives that are needlessly lost to someone else's idea of morality)

By: iamck

iamck — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:02:21 -0800

But is there any reason for this ban on funding that can be explained without resorting to the stance on abortion? Is this clearly an idealogical issue (or is there some fallback argument that the adminstration can point to)?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:08:55 -0800

b_thinky writes "Cuz abortion is like, murder???" What about condoms?

By: Rothko

Rothko — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:09:56 -0800

imack, from the Wiki link: This [global gag] policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993 by President Bill Clinton on his first working day as President. It was likewise reinstated January 22, 2001, the first day of President George W. Bush's term with the comment, "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. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored."

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:10:21 -0800

But is there any reason for this ban on funding that can be explained without resorting to the stance on abortion? No. Bush didn't even bother with spin or statements from Scotty for this one. His actual statement on re-establishing the policy was: "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." Bush doesn't like abortion. He doesn't want money going to programs that promote abortion. There's no subtlety or spin to it. He's altering international policy, because, as he himself explained, he wants to. So there.

By: zarah

zarah — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:13:46 -0800

What about condoms? Because craploads of men in Africa & other similarly afflicted countries refuse to use them? I don't believe you're not aware of this.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:17:50 -0800

AID mashup from here

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:21:38 -0800

"Cuz abortion is like, murder???" And this policy is like, not? I guess we are all forgetting that, as far as this administration is concerned, it is okay to kill them darkies once they is born. At that point, they become "useless eaters". Until they is born, however, we is doing Gawd's work to make sure they is born... so we can kill them. See? Makes sense, don't it?

By: wakko

wakko — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:28:44 -0800

"abstinence-only" programs =

By: planetthoughtful

planetthoughtful — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:42:46 -0800

It's a complex issue, made all the more complex by the fact that the US is one of the few nations with the resources to make significant contributions to global HIV/AIDS research. Not too long ago we had news in Australia of a research team's difficulties in applying for funding from the US for what might become an incredibly cheap and effective way of dramatically reducing HIV takeup from unprotected sex using, of all things, lemon or lime juice. The problem being that the team's best and most ethical opportunity to conduct human research is on a group of Nigerian prostitutes who have been using lemon juice as a natural contraceptive for many years, and that runs into the following difficulty (quote taken from above link): the Bush administration had announced a new policy that requiring all U.S. HIV/AIDS groups seeking federal funding for work overseas to make a written pledge to oppose commercial sex work, or risk losing funding. If lemon or lime juice turned out to be an effective and non-harmful way of significantly reducing HIV infection, it would be a revolutionary win in the battle against the spread of HIV / AIDS in third world countries. And the cynic in me wonders if the research might be further opposed by companies who would much prefer a patentable, profit-earning approach to the same problem (eg the product described in docgonzo's link)?

By: PontifexPrimus

PontifexPrimus — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:43:33 -0800

docgonzo: "Let's see the fundies block this one." Well, the religious right isn't too happy with a vaccine that might prevent cancer just because it might cause people to have more sex. So I fear they'll try their best to block that progress, too. I wonder how they can live with a body that is obviously (intelligently?) designed to derive pleasure from an act that they consider shameful, impure and dirty...

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:22:21 -0800

"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." That statement is one I don't disagree with. However I've always found abstinence-only to be in conflict with the anti-abortion agenda. I'm not sure how acceptance of the former serves the goals of the latter. I would think saving the lives of the unborn would outweigh any other moral consideration given an anti-abortion position (one I'm morally, but not legally, aligned with). In this case the catch-22 seems to be not that you must take responsibility for the child, but that the child is the lifetime retribution for having sex. While I might have a problem with spending taxpayer funds on abortion, it does raise the question on what the other public costs are. Not only the disease and public health issues in not spending money on birth control education, but also the delivery of an unwanted child and societys role in caring for that child through services. I simply don't have that information, I would think though money spent on adoption counseling would be better spent than trying to circumvent the universally powerful force of nature that is the urge to procreate.

By: wakko

wakko — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:48:27 -0800

I wonder how they can live with a body that is obviously (intelligently?) designed to derive pleasure from an act that they consider shameful, impure and dirty Most of them consider it sacred, actually, and thus feel that sex for any purpose other than procreation to be an affront to God. It's still remarkably stupid, though.

By: beth

beth — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:07:56 -0800

but also the delivery of an unwanted child and societys role in caring for that child through services I'm sorry but you misspelled "Society's role in exploiting that surplus labor for the benefit of those at the top".