Bush choice for family-planning post criticized

hippiemom

Uncle Leo wrote:

I agree, but it is still Bush's choice and frankly, reflective of what the American people would want. Or at least what they would accept in return for all the other reasons they voted for him. It's his perogitive to do this.

I really don't think birth control played a part in most people's decision making when they voted for him. The evangelicals, yes, but they are a minority. Most Americans support full access to birth control services.

VictoryGin

Uncle Leo wrote:

The hard core pro-choice people (I am a "softer" pro-choice) need to wake up--most Americans are NOT pro-choice.

what makes you think that? polls say otherwise.

The Polls Speak: Americans Support Abortion

by Celinda Lake

Despite what anti-abortion activists and politicians would have you believe, the majority of Americans continue to support a woman’s right to a legal abortion — as they have done consistently for the past 15 years. Polls show that those who strive to abolish a woman’s right to the full range of family-planning services are fundamentally out of step with American opinion. Here’s a sampling:

Voters self-identify as “pro-choice” over “pro-life” by a double-digit margin.
In 2004, 52 percent of voters identified themselves as pro-choice, 41 percent pro-life, according to Gallup Poll trend data. Although the margins have fluctuated slightly, the pro-choice position has remained dominant since 1996, and in the past four years there has been very little change in public opinion.

Americans strongly wish to keep abortion legal.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of respondents nationwide favored keeping abortion legal in all or most cases. The survey of 1,082 adults, conducted in April 2005, showed that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep abortion illegal in all cases, with another 27 percent wanting most cases to be illegal.

Voters don’t want the government and politicians involved in their choice about abortion. In a recent survey by The Mellman Group, 62 percent of respondents felt the government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. Only 33 percent believe the government should restrict access.

Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade.
Nearly 60 percent of Americans say that, if presented with an opportunity to appoint one or more new justices to the Supreme Court, President Bush should pick individuals who would uphold Roe.

The Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll, which surveyed a national sample of 1,000 adults last November, found that only three in 10 respondents (31 percent) favored nominating justices who would overturn Roe.

Voters don’t want the Senate to rubber-stamp judicial nominees.
Three-quarters of the respondents in a poll of 1,000 likely voters said that the Senate should examine each of the president’s nominees carefully and make its own independent judgment. Only 24 percent thought that the Senate should just confirm whomever Bush puts forward.

Voters avidly support comprehensive sex education and emergency contraception and don’t support pharmacists refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions.
When the debate expands beyond abortion, voters show overwhelming support for a number of issues impacting women’s reproductive rights, family planning and prevention of unintended pregnancies. Voters recently surveyed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America overwhelmingly (78 percent) favor requirements that schools teach sex education, and 79 percent favor access to emergency contraception (EC) for rape and incest victims.

A large majority (65 percent) favors EC for all women, and 66 percent said that health-insurance policies should cover contraceptives. Respondents further showed strong support (67 percent) for a law making it clear that contraception does not constitute abortion and should not be regulated by abortion legislation. Furthermore, in the recent debate over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, only 40 percent of those surveyed agreed that pharmacists should be allowed to do so.

The support for abortion and family-planning rights is rooted in core values of free choice, personal responsibility and personal decision-making.
Politicians love to talk about values these days, so we can remind them that support for reproductive choice is rooted in strong ones. According to the Planned Parenthood polling, nearly nine in 10 voters (88 percent) agree that men and women should have the right to the information and means to decide freely and responsibly about the number and spacing of their children.

The abortion issue did not determine the outcome of the 2004 presidential election — but perhaps it could in a future contest.
In the months since November 2004, a host of commentators insisted that abortion had a negative impact on the election; some even blamed Democratic candidate John Kerry’s loss on his support for abortion rights.

However, data collected by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the nonpartisan network Votes for Women 2004 shows that the election issues about which voters most cared were the economy (23 percent), national security and terrorism (19 percent), and the war in Iraq (13 percent).

When voters were asked what made them decide their presidential choice, only 2 percent volunteered the issue of abortion. Among Kerry voters, less than 1 percent offered this as an issue. Among Bush voters, only 2 percent said abortion determined their vote for president.

But actual votes for the two presidential candidates divided clearly — and evenly — along the line of abortion-rights ideology: Voters who felt abortion should be “always legal” voted 73 percent for Kerry, while self-defined pro-lifers voters voted 77 percent for George W. Bush.

Perhaps if choice had played a more visible role in the presidential campaign, John Kerry would have fared better. In fact, choice may have played a role in generating a record number of unmarried-women voters, who surged in turnout — 7.5 million more than in 2000 — with 62 percent of them casting their votes for Kerry.

Looking to the future of the electorate, 60 percent of female voters under the age of 45 were pro-choice, according to exit polling, compared to 55 percent of all 2004 voters. Effectively mobilized, perhaps they’ll demand—and vote for—only the candidates who dedicate themselves to preserving women’s reproductive rights.
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Hey baraka...always nice to see you.

I'm not arguing that such a procedure wouldn't be used as an "emotional tool". I'm well aware that ultrasounds potentially pose unnecessary risks and I'm not supporting their use in such a manner. However, nothing stops people from using ultrasounds in all sorts of potentially inappropriate ways..

Agreed

farfromglorified wrote:

What I'm trying to understand here is whether the arguments being made against this guy aren't as "emotional" as what he's doing.

Sure they are. Folks that believe abstinence alone is not the absolute answer to the problem of teenage pregnancy & STDs are going to have a problem with this. The same case could be made for the other side, if there was someone in charge with a more liberal approach to the matter. There is no way around 'emotions' with this topic. However, it is also easy to note the blatant bias of particular decisions, on both sides of the issue. You asked the other poster about 'coercion' to have an ultrasound. I'm not sure coercion is the correct word, but there is definitely an agenda in recommending such a procedure when not medically indicated, don't you think?

surferdude

It seems like who ever Bush appointed would be criticized. The only type person that some circles would approve is someone who is pro-choice up until the delivery. Someone who feels that educating anyone of any of the possible effects of an abortion is immoral.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

It seems like who ever Bush appointed would be criticized. The only type person that some circles would approve is someone who is pro-choice up until the delivery. Someone who feels that educating anyone of any of the possible effects of an abortion is immoral.

I really don't care what the guy's position on abortion is, since the government doesn't provide abortion services anyway. I just don't understand why you'd put someone who doesn't believe in birth control in charge of ensuring access to birth control.

Heatherj43

All of Bush's appointments have been f'cked up. This is no surprise.
Might as well stop the program now...it will end up being strictly some kind of place that women will get demeaned and get no help.
His other new appointment for that guy to take Rummy's place is f'cked too. The only qualifications is that he has leader and mangerial skills...reminds of what Bownie had for FEMA!!!
I hate Bush. I wish the Iraqis would come get him and try him for war crimes in their nation and then house him with Saddam and hang them both together. Hes crazy!!!

Heatherj43

surferdude wrote:

It seems like who ever Bush appointed would be criticized. The only type person that some circles would approve is someone who is pro-choice up until the delivery. Someone who feels that educating anyone of any of the possible effects of an abortion is immoral.

WTF are you talking about??? First of all, the guy doesn't belive in any birth control. And second, to not tell a woman of ALL the effects of abortion is plain dumb! Are you saying they should just go get the abortion uneducated about it?
To put a guy in charge of the very program that provides birth control, when the guy is anti-birth control is just ignorant and wrong. Birth control doesn't just mean abortion!!!!!

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Sure they are. Folks that believe abstinence alone is not the absolute answer to the problem of teenage pregnancy & STDs are going to have a problem with this.

Sure.

The same case could be made for the other side, if there was someone in charge with a more liberal approach to the matter. There is no way around 'emotions' with this topic. However, it is also easy to note the blatant bias of particular decisions, on both sides of the issue. You asked the other poster about 'coercion' to have an ultrasound. I'm not sure coercion is the correct word, but there is definitely an agenda in recommending such a procedure when not medically indicated, don't you think?

Of course there's an agenda! But the opposition is just as agenda driven, yet insists on hiding behind words like "medical" and "education" and "access". The problem there is that an ultrasound, even when done for an agenda, can expose medical issues, can educate, and provides access. Furthermore, the accusation of "coersion" really bugs me because not providing such ultrasounds is also a form a coersion in this context. This is all nit-picking really, but what I'm trying to get down to is this basic question:

If you can form public policy around your emotional agenda, why can't someone else?

surferdude

Heatherj43 wrote:

All of Bush's appointments have been f'cked up. This is no surprise.

His Supreme Court appointments have all been good, and better than his harshest critic could have ever imagined.

Heatherj43 wrote:

Might as well stop the program now.

This is a great idea. It's a waste of tax payer money to get involved in private matters.

Heatherj43 wrote:

I hate Bush.

You really could have had just this as you post. This emotion colors all reaction you have to anything Bush does, so why not let it speak for itself.

surferdude

Heatherj43 wrote:

WTF are you talking about??? First of all, the guy doesn't belive in any birth control. And second, to not tell a woman of ALL the effects of abortion is plain dumb! Are you saying they should just go get the abortion uneducated about it?
To put a guy in charge of the very program that provides birth control, when the guy is anti-birth control is just ignorant and wrong. Birth control doesn't just mean abortion!!!!!

Let's take a Reading 101 lesson. The quite is, and note the underlined part, "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women."

I agree with this. It's also demeaning to men. The crass commercialization of any product of a very private nature is demeaning in my opinion.

Heatherj43

surferdude wrote:

His Supreme Court appointments have all been good, and better than his harshest critic could have ever imagined.
This is a great idea. It's a waste of tax payer money to get involved in private matters.
You really could have had just this as you post. This emotion colors all reaction you have to anything Bush does, so why not let it speak for itself.

I don't hate him without due reason. It is crap like this why I do, so no, it doesn't color my reactions to what he does. It his actions that makes me hate him.
And we do need family planning. I am not arguing that point now. We do have it and Bush has made a horrible appinment for the person to head it, period!!

Heatherj43

surferdude wrote:

Let's take a Reading 101 lesson. The quite is, and note the underlined part, "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women."

I agree with this. It's also demeaning to men. The crass commercialization of any product of a very private nature is demeaning in my opinion.

Most adults have sex, its part of mother nature, married ones too. How is providing birth control measures to both men and women demeaning??? How is educating them demeaning???
It is not a private matter. It is what adults do. Of course birth control measures need to be commercialized!!! Geez, are we in the Puritan ages??? People need to know about, and able to obtain, means of birth control.
There is such a thing as Family Planning, whether you like it or not...it is assinine to put someone in charge of it who does not believe in it. Its really a no brainer.

Uncle Leo

Heatherj43 wrote:

Most adults have sex, its part of mother nature, married ones too. How is providing birth control measures to both men and women demeaning??? How is educating them demeaning???
It is not a private matter. It is what adults do. Of course birth control measures need to be commercialized!!! Geez, are we in the Puritan ages??? People need to know about, and able to obtain, means of birth control.
There is such a thing as Family Planning, whether you like it or not...it is assinine to put someone in charge of it who does not believe in it. Its really a no brainer.

He also puts polluters in almost of positions of environmental significance and I think his first Health and Human Services director (Tommy Thompson), was pro-tobacco.

And we re-elected him because he'd be better to have a beer with than Kerry. He gets to do this. He's the president.

Heatherj43

Uncle Leo wrote:

He also puts polluters in almost of positions of environmental significance and I think his first Health and Human Services director (Tommy Thompson), was pro-tobacco.

And we re-elected him because he'd be better to have a beer with than Kerry. He gets to do this. He's the president.

Hmmm, I thought the didn't drink anymore!! And yeah he is the pres...but not for long!!!
Oh and WE didn't re-elect him!!!!

bootlegger10

Don't you get bored of criticizing? It is a fact that some of you will not support one thing Bush does, so all these threads are overkill. There should just be one thread from now on that says, "I Hate Bush." Much like the Ebay thread at Blackredyellow.com. Then the Moving Train would only have one thread going, though.

bootlegger10

Heatherj43 wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the didn't drink anymore!! And yeah he is the pres...but not for long!!!
Oh and WE didn't re-elect him!!!!

The American public re-elected him. I realize that Rolling Stone magazine doesn't believe that, but I urge you to look at facts and votes.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

If you can form public policy around your emotional agenda, why can't someone else?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, and it's so far in the past posts that it's been twisted almost beyond recognition.

I originally said that they "offered" women ultrasounds and you took issue with me using the quotations marks. OK. THen I said that I really thought was that women were being coerced into taking the ultrasound for the sole purpose of emotionally blackmailing them into not having an abortion. Now, I have no evidence of any coercion taking place... that's why I DIDN'T use the word in my original post.

But you also seem to take issue with what I think. I can't respond to that. And I can't tell you why I think this or that, but I have a feeling that some type of coercion goes on (based on the fact that the agency's purpose is to prevent women from choosing abortion, the fact that the ultrasound is not medically needed, and the fact that the women are already in a vulnerable position).

Now, I'm not an elected official, so I can't in fact form any type of public policy based on my emotional agenda. Nor I am trying to. I was posting my thoughts and my feelings alone.

VictoryGin

surferdude wrote:

Let's take a Reading 101 lesson. The quite is, and note the underlined part, "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women."

I agree with this. It's also demeaning to men. The crass commercialization of any product of a very private nature is demeaning in my opinion.

you forgot to underline "distribution."

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course there's an agenda! But the opposition is just as agenda driven, yet insists on hiding behind words like "medical" and "education" and "access". The problem there is that an ultrasound, even when done for an agenda, can expose medical issues, can educate, and provides access. Furthermore, the accusation of "coersion" really bugs me because not providing such ultrasounds is also a form a coersion in this context. This is all nit-picking really, but what I'm trying to get down to is this basic question:

If you can form public policy around your emotional agenda, why can't someone else?

You're losing me, ffg. Not providing something deemed unecessary is considered coersion? I would think someone such as yourself would scream about wasted tax dollars. Don't get me wrong, an ultrasound is very useful medical tool, but they are not routinely performed on patients very early in their pregnancy unless the patient has a history of complications or new complications develop. So why are they being done with tax dollars? For some reason I don't think it has anything to do with the health of the pregnant woman. Let's call a spade a spade.

As far as your last statement, unless I'm misunderstanding something, the purpose of such a position is to provide 'medical' care, sex & family planning 'education', and birth control 'access' to women. It seems reasonable to me that folks would not be happy with a 'family-planning' group, supported by tax dollars, that are not meeting the intended goals of the organization. Again, let's call a spade a spade. If an organization is put in place and is supported for a specific reason, then there is a problem when an individual that 'disagrees' with the foundations of said organization is appointed to a powerful position in that organization.

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, and it's so far in the past posts that it's been twisted almost beyond recognition.

I originally said that they "offered" women ultrasounds and you took issue with me using the quotations marks. OK. THen I said that I really thought was that women were being coerced into taking the ultrasound for the sole purpose of emotionally blackmailing them into not having an abortion. Now, I have no evidence of any coercion taking place... that's why I DIDN'T use the word in my original post.

But you also seem to take issue with what I think. I can't respond to that. And I can't tell you why I think this or that, but I have a feeling that some type of coercion goes on (based on the fact that the agency's purpose is to prevent women from choosing abortion, the fact that the ultrasound is not medically needed, and the fact that the women are already in a vulnerable position).

Now, I'm not an elected official, so I can't in fact form any type of public policy based on my emotional agenda. Nor I am trying to. I was posting my thoughts and my feelings alone.

qtegirl, my posts here are not directly aimed at you. I understand where you're coming from with the "coerced" thing -- I don't disagree with you there that such things are likely happening. What I'm trying to get to the root of is why those things are bad, when the whole point of political "family planning" is coersion.