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!!
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.
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.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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."
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
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.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
You're losing me, ffg. Not providing something deemed unecessary is considered coersion?
No -- the rejection of it can be though. Let's say, for example, that women who got early ultrasounds were less likely to get abortions. I'm wondering if there would be a similar uproar. Or let's say, for example, that he referred to birth control as being "sexually empowering"?
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.
Of course. From my perspective, any tax dollar spent on "family planning" is a more likely a wasted tax dollar than not.
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.
Yes. Now, isn't getting an ultrasound "educational"??? Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the entire reason behind this ultrasound is a coersive effort on the part of a pro-lifer. Does that eliminate the educational aspect of seeing a child growing within you? No.
Furthermore, is an ultrasound still not a "medical" procedure??? Again, even if it's 100% coersive, it's still a procedure that in some cases may end up serving a medical purpose.
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.
See, that's where you're probably wrong here. Uncle Leo made the point earlier and I think he's spot-on. This is the kind of "family planning" that the majority in this country want. It's most consistent with their values. That certainly doesn't make it good or right or anything, but it's perfectly consistent with the system we've created here and it's very consistent with the arguments I typically hear from liberals everyday on this board.
I'm not saying this is a good appointment. I'm not defending this guy at all. He seems like a bit of a nut. But if you're going to allow the government to spend your money for encouraging certain behaviors in regards to "family planning", I'm not sure how you can really blame someone for having an agenda. The position requires it. You can reject him based on the fact that his agenda isn't your agenda, but it seems kind of ridiculous to accuse him of being unfit for the job.
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.
This is political correctness gone awry. All sides now do this and it's wrong.
Who gives shit what someone believes in private as long as when they are on the job they do the job. I know I don't agree with all the decisions or mandates where I work but I abide by them.
Let's judge people by the work they do and not their private opinions on matters. This demonizing people for their point of view is ridiculous.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This is political correctness gone awry. All sides now do this and it's wrong.
Who gives shit what someone believes in private as long as when they are on the job they do the job. I know I don't agree with all the decisions or mandates where I work but I abide by them.
Let's judge people by the work they do and not their private opinions on matters. This demonizing people for their point of view is ridiculous.
I know that if, during my interview, I had expressed the opinion that all parties are not equally entitled to legal representation, I would not be working here. Some people DO believe that, and they should not be working at law firms .... and people who don't believe in making birth control as widely available as possible should not be working for agencies that exist to make birth control widely available.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I know that if, during my interview, I had expressed the opinion that all parties are not equally entitled to legal representation, I would not be working here. Some people DO believe that, and they should not be working at law firms .... and people who don't believe in making birth control as widely available as possible should not be working for agencies that exist to make birth control widely available.
Why? Does this impact they job they do if the don't care if the other side has representation? Hell, I'd be looking for lawyers who'd want to exploit this and make their client money. And not bitch and moan about the unfairness of the system.
I'm all for criticizing people based on their performance but it's political correctness gone asinine to do it based on the views. Because if that's the case you should be looking to take away just about every doctor's credentials that ever performed an abortion as it pretty much goes against the oath they took in becoming doctors.
Whould you start stripping pharmacists of their jobs if they don't believe in the morniing after pill? (but still dispense it)? Do people have to but into group think to get a job?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No -- the rejection of it can be though. Let's say, for example, that women who got early ultrasounds were less likely to get abortions. I'm wondering if there would be a similar uproar. Or let's say, for example, that he referred to birth control as being "sexually empowering"?
Yes. Now, isn't getting an ultrasound "educational"??? Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the entire reason behind this ultrasound is a coersive effort on the part of a pro-lifer. Does that eliminate the educational aspect of seeing a child growing within you? No.
Furthermore, is an ultrasound still not a "medical" procedure??? Again, even if it's 100% coersive, it's still a procedure that in some cases may end up serving a medical purpose.
An ultrasound is very educational and, imo, very touching emotionally ( i vividly remember mine at 18 weeks and cherish the pics I have). Every woman should have one during their pregnancy. I'll tell you that one performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy is not as impressive to the layman as one done, say, after the 1st trimester. You are not 'seeing' too much early on. A very trained eye is needed to interpret the results. Your argument does not make too much sense to me, though. Personally, I would not want something performed that might have unhealthy results just 'in case' it may end up serving a potential medical purpose.
See, that's where you're probably wrong here. Uncle Leo made the point earlier and I think he's spot-on. This is the kind of "family planning" that the majority in this country want. It's most consistent with their values. That certainly doesn't make it good or right or anything, but it's perfectly consistent with the system we've created here and it's very consistent with the arguments I typically hear from liberals everyday on this board.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think there are folks out there that disagree with abortion and feel that 'demonizing' the use of birth control only adds to the number of potential abortions.
I'm not saying this is a good appointment. I'm not defending this guy at all. He seems like a bit of a nut. But if you're going to allow the government to spend your money for encouraging certain behaviors in regards to "family planning", I'm not sure how you can really blame someone for having an agenda. The position requires it. You can reject him based on the fact that his agenda isn't your agenda, but it seems kind of ridiculous to accuse him of being unfit for the job.
How is calling him a nut and bad appointment any different than saying he is not the right man/ woman for the job?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This is political correctness gone awry. All sides now do this and it's wrong.
Who gives shit what someone believes in private as long as when they are on the job they do the job. I know I don't agree with all the decisions or mandates where I work but I abide by them.
Let's judge people by the work they do and not their private opinions on matters. This demonizing people for their point of view is ridiculous.
You misunderstand, I think. I believe this man made his intentions very clear as to where he wanted to take this organization. It is not just his 'private' beliefs. And I agree with your second statement, but I don't see this man making sure that women have access to birth control. As a matter of fact, I think I read just the opposite.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You misunderstand, I think. I believe this man made his intentions very clear as to where he wanted to take this organization. It is not just his 'private' beliefs. And I agree with your second statement, but I don't see this man making sure that women have access to birth control. As a matter of fact, I think I read just the opposite.
But he's just been appointed. He hasn't done anything yet to warrant any criticism.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
By those here and elsewhere that will reject such ultrasounds based primarily on the fact that they lead to less abortions. If these ultrasounds the reverse or absolutely no affect on such decisions, I doubt it would even come up.
An ultrasound is very educational and, imo, very touching emotionally ( i vividly remember mine at 18 weeks and cherish the pics I have). Every woman should have one during their pregnancy. I'll tell you that one performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy is not as impressive to the layman as one done, say, after the 1st trimester. You are not 'seeing' too much early on. A very trained eye is needed to interpret the results.
Yes, but at the same time it obviously has an effect. My friend's wife is about 3 months pregnant right now and is absolutely gushing over her first ultrasound photos wherein the child has to be circled just to figure out where it is. I can completely understand how such ultrasounds would lead to less abortions by giving the mother something very tangible to see. Again, I'm not defending these actions. I just find the arguments against them to be specious at best.
Your argument does not make too much sense to me, though. Personally, I would not want something performed that might have unhealthy results just 'in case' it may end up serving a potential medical purpose.
And that's perfectly fine. I'm not advocating that women have an ultrasound "just because" or because it may, in rare cases, end up serving a medical purpose. However, I'm also not going to really believe the arguments made against such procedures either because they too are based largely on "just because" reasoning.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think there are folks out there that disagree with abortion and feel that 'demonizing' the use of birth control only adds to the number of potential abortions.
Sure, but that's exactly my point. Again, we've created a system where the government is going to act as a guide for "family planning" which means someone's agenda is going to dominate. There's a fundamental problem with that: there's no such thing as a universally right way to plan for a family. Furthermore, there's not even a universal definition of family. Once you assume that you have the right to define and guide that agenda for a population, you've granted that same right to anyone. That means you're going to have an agenda-driven body that represents the "family planning" goals of whoever happens to have social power today.
How is calling him a nut and bad appointment any different than saying he is not the right man/ woman for the job?
Touche I don't think there even should be a job, though!
By those here and elsewhere that will reject such ultrasounds based primarily on the fact that they lead to less abortions. If these ultrasounds the reverse or absolutely no affect on such decisions, I doubt it would even come up.
those here?
i don't know an abortion provider that doesn't do an ultrasound before surgery.
Sure, but that's exactly my point. Again, we've created a system where the government is going to act as a guide for "family planning" which means someone's agenda is going to dominate. There's a fundamental problem with that: there's no such thing as a universally right way to plan for a family. Furthermore, there's not even a universal definition of family. Once you assume that you have the right to define and guide that agenda for a population, you've granted that same right to anyone. That means you're going to have an agenda-driven body that represents the "family planning" goals of whoever happens to have social power today.
i wouldn't say everyone's agenda is to determine a right way to plan or define a family. in fact, there are people whose agenda it is to provide information on all current, available options and have the individuals decide.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
But he's just been appointed. He hasn't done anything yet to warrant any criticism.
But isn't reasonable to assume that due to his past working for an organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women" that he will not be too keen on spending the "$283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons.""
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Why? Does this impact they job they do if the don't care if the other side has representation? Hell, I'd be looking for lawyers who'd want to exploit this and make their client money. And not bitch and moan about the unfairness of the system.
I'm all for criticizing people based on their performance but it's political correctness gone asinine to do it based on the views. Because if that's the case you should be looking to take away just about every doctor's credentials that ever performed an abortion as it pretty much goes against the oath they took in becoming doctors.
Whould you start stripping pharmacists of their jobs if they don't believe in the morniing after pill? (but still dispense it)? Do people have to but into group think to get a job?
Why would anyone WANT to work for an organization that is diametrically opposed to some of their most deeply held beliefs? I can conceive of no circumstances under which I would want to work for a "pro-life" organization, for example. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror. It's not as though this guy is just someone who prefers not to use birth control himself, or even one that would prefer that no one used it. A good part of his life's work has involved trying to LIMIT access to birth control, so what is it that makes him so qualified to run an agency devoted to making birth control more freely available? It would seem to me that he has no experience in that area.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
sadly i don't have time to get dragged through minutiae, but i couldn't let something pass.
those here?
i don't know an abortion provider that doesn't do an ultrasound before surgery.
Ok, then do you take issue with such ultrasounds in this case? If so, what's the difference?
i wouldn't say everyone's agenda is to determine a right way to plan or define a family. in fact, there are people whose agenda it is to provide information on all current, available options and have the individuals decide.
Is an ultrasound not easily classified as "informative"? Is abstinence-education not easily classified as "educational"? Again, I'm failing to see how anything this guy is proposing cannot fall into the classifications people keep using here.
By those here and elsewhere that will reject such ultrasounds based primarily on the fact that they lead to less abortions. If these ultrasounds the reverse or absolutely no affect on such decisions, I doubt it would even come up.
Yes, but at the same time it obviously has an effect. My friend's wife is about 3 months pregnant right now and is absolutely gushing over her first ultrasound photos wherein the child has to be circled just to figure out where it is. I can completely understand how such ultrasounds would lead to less abortions by giving the mother something very tangible to see. Again, I'm not defending these actions. I just find the arguments against them to be specious at best.
And that's perfectly fine. I'm not advocating that women have an ultrasound "just because" or because it may, in rare cases, end up serving a medical purpose. However, I'm also not going to really believe the arguments made against such procedures either because they too are based largely on "just because" reasoning.
Sure, but that's exactly my point. Again, we've created a system where the government is going to act as a guide for "family planning" which means someone's agenda is going to dominate. There's a fundamental problem with that: there's no such thing as a universally right way to plan for a family. Furthermore, there's not even a universal definition of family. Once you assume that you have the right to define and guide that agenda for a population, you've granted that same right to anyone. That means you're going to have an agenda-driven body that represents the "family planning" goals of whoever happens to have social power today.
Touche I don't think there even should be a job, though!
The main problem I see with this is the money funneled into this organization will not be used for the primary intention of this organization, ie, providing info and access to birth control. Yet, money will be spent on unneccesary ultrasounds.
But I can see your point about the gov't defining what 'family planning' or a 'family' is, however, I don't have a problem with an organization providing info & access to birth control, as long as they provide info & access to ALL the options. Both sides can be biased with information.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok, then do you take issue with such ultrasounds in this case? If so, what's the difference?
yes because everyone i've spoken to who went to a clinic like that was harassed, lied to, and made to feel very guilty about their medical decisions. they were forced to look at an ultrasound and were often lied to about the gestation. clinics like that often trick people to get them in and then sometimes lock them in once they're there.
and they're providing a US just to talk them out of a procedure; it's not like they're offering any other kind of medical service there.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
The main problem I see with this is the money funneled into this organization will not be used for the primary intention of this organization, ie, providing info and access to birth control. Yet, money will be spent on unneccesary ultrasounds.
The "primary intention" of this organization is not providing info and access to birth control. The primary intention of this organization is the "provision of family planning and reproductive health care". Now, while to you that sentence means "condom pusher" , to someone else it means "deterring abortion".
But I can see your point about the gov't defining what 'family planning' or a 'family' is, however, I don't have a problem with an organization providing info & access to birth control, as long as they provide info & access to ALL the options. Both sides can be biased with information.
I don't have a problem with it either. There are great organizations that provide info & access to birth control and they should be supported. Furthermore, their leadership cannot be supplanted based on the whims of politicians!
yes because everyone i've spoken to who went to a clinic like that was harassed, lied to, and made to feel very guilty about their medical decisions. they were forced to look at an ultrasound and were often lied to about the gestation. clinics like that often trick people to get them in and then sometimes lock them in once they're there.
Obviously I cannot argue with your personal experience. However, I'm curious why people are telling you about this? Who are your clientele here?
and they're providing a US just to talk them out of a procedure; it's not like they're offering any other kind of medical service there.
Do you not understand that they would most vehemently disagree here??? Deterring people from abortion, to a pro-lifer, is most certainly a "medical service" since they view it as medically unnecessary, dangerous, and unethical.
Again, I'm not defending such positions. What I'm trying to do is keep them from holding sway over my life. That's a double-edged sword, however, because it prevents me from pushing my positions on them. Pushing one "family planning" agenda on America is the sole purpose of this organization, which is why I completely oppose its existence.
Do you not understand that they would most vehemently disagree here??? Deterring people from abortion, to a pro-lifer, is most certainly a "medical service" since they view it as medically unnecessary, dangerous, and unethical.
well i can call myself 'carrie brownstein' but that doesn't mean i'm her. they aren't doing anything medical save for an ultrasound. persuading a person is not medical. perhaps a moral service, not medical.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
And are these pregnant women who have decided to a) get abortions b) not get abortions or c) roughly 50/50 or d) it has nothing to do with abortions?
well i can call myself 'carrie brownstein' but that doesn't mean i'm her. they aren't doing anything medical save for an ultrasound. persuading a person is not medical. perhaps a moral service, not medical.
Of course persuading a person can be medical. It took me 15 years to persuade my father to get a damn colonostemy. Not a doctor's visit goes by without my doctor trying to persuade me to quit smoking. Every pro-choice argument revolves around persuading society to allow women their right to choose for her health while every pro-life argument revolves around persuading society to disallow women their right to choose for the child's health.
And are these pregnant women who have decided to a) get abortions b) not get abortions or c) roughly 50/50 or d) it has nothing to do with abortions?
Of course persuading a person can be medical. It took me 15 years to persuade my father to get a damn colonostemy. Not a doctor's visit goes by without my doctor trying to persuade me to quit smoking. Every pro-choice argument revolves around persuading society to allow women their right to choose for her health while every pro-life argument revolves around persuading society to disallow women their right to choose for the child's health.
persuasion isn't a medical service. i think it can be medical in nature, but it's not a medical service. i can't go around on this. if this is where it's going i just don't have the time to spend.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Why would anyone WANT to work for an organization that is diametrically opposed to some of their most deeply held beliefs? I can conceive of no circumstances under which I would want to work for a "pro-life" organization, for example. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror. It's not as though this guy is just someone who prefers not to use birth control himself, or even one that would prefer that no one used it. A good part of his life's work has involved trying to LIMIT access to birth control, so what is it that makes him so qualified to run an agency devoted to making birth control more freely available? It would seem to me that he has no experience in that area.
So you wouldn't based on your morals. I think that's a great way for you to live your life and probably best if you applied it to others. If the appointee has no issue working for an organization that goes against some of his/her beliefs then we should let them. A lot of people actually do a great job of not letting their personal beliefs get in the way of doing a great job.
As far as what makes him qualified, well you should know that most managerial skill sets are not industry or belief specific. But much more tied to communication, strategy identification and implementation, and organizational skills. So this person could be greatly qualified and you want to dismiss him. Does this mean we only want Judges that have been both defence or prosecuting attorneys? Or do we wactually want judges with the right skill set to be good judges?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Comments
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!!
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.
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.
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.
you forgot to underline "distribution."
cross the river to the eastside
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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
No -- the rejection of it can be though. Let's say, for example, that women who got early ultrasounds were less likely to get abortions. I'm wondering if there would be a similar uproar. Or let's say, for example, that he referred to birth control as being "sexually empowering"?
Of course. From my perspective, any tax dollar spent on "family planning" is a more likely a wasted tax dollar than not.
Yes. Now, isn't getting an ultrasound "educational"??? Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the entire reason behind this ultrasound is a coersive effort on the part of a pro-lifer. Does that eliminate the educational aspect of seeing a child growing within you? No.
Furthermore, is an ultrasound still not a "medical" procedure??? Again, even if it's 100% coersive, it's still a procedure that in some cases may end up serving a medical purpose.
See, that's where you're probably wrong here. Uncle Leo made the point earlier and I think he's spot-on. This is the kind of "family planning" that the majority in this country want. It's most consistent with their values. That certainly doesn't make it good or right or anything, but it's perfectly consistent with the system we've created here and it's very consistent with the arguments I typically hear from liberals everyday on this board.
I'm not saying this is a good appointment. I'm not defending this guy at all. He seems like a bit of a nut. But if you're going to allow the government to spend your money for encouraging certain behaviors in regards to "family planning", I'm not sure how you can really blame someone for having an agenda. The position requires it. You can reject him based on the fact that his agenda isn't your agenda, but it seems kind of ridiculous to accuse him of being unfit for the job.
Who gives shit what someone believes in private as long as when they are on the job they do the job. I know I don't agree with all the decisions or mandates where I work but I abide by them.
Let's judge people by the work they do and not their private opinions on matters. This demonizing people for their point of view is ridiculous.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm all for criticizing people based on their performance but it's political correctness gone asinine to do it based on the views. Because if that's the case you should be looking to take away just about every doctor's credentials that ever performed an abortion as it pretty much goes against the oath they took in becoming doctors.
Whould you start stripping pharmacists of their jobs if they don't believe in the morniing after pill? (but still dispense it)? Do people have to but into group think to get a job?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
The rejection of it? The rejection by whom?
An ultrasound is very educational and, imo, very touching emotionally ( i vividly remember mine at 18 weeks and cherish the pics I have). Every woman should have one during their pregnancy. I'll tell you that one performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy is not as impressive to the layman as one done, say, after the 1st trimester. You are not 'seeing' too much early on. A very trained eye is needed to interpret the results. Your argument does not make too much sense to me, though. Personally, I would not want something performed that might have unhealthy results just 'in case' it may end up serving a potential medical purpose.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I think there are folks out there that disagree with abortion and feel that 'demonizing' the use of birth control only adds to the number of potential abortions.
How is calling him a nut and bad appointment any different than saying he is not the right man/ woman for the job?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You misunderstand, I think. I believe this man made his intentions very clear as to where he wanted to take this organization. It is not just his 'private' beliefs. And I agree with your second statement, but I don't see this man making sure that women have access to birth control. As a matter of fact, I think I read just the opposite.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
By those here and elsewhere that will reject such ultrasounds based primarily on the fact that they lead to less abortions. If these ultrasounds the reverse or absolutely no affect on such decisions, I doubt it would even come up.
Yes, but at the same time it obviously has an effect. My friend's wife is about 3 months pregnant right now and is absolutely gushing over her first ultrasound photos wherein the child has to be circled just to figure out where it is. I can completely understand how such ultrasounds would lead to less abortions by giving the mother something very tangible to see. Again, I'm not defending these actions. I just find the arguments against them to be specious at best.
And that's perfectly fine. I'm not advocating that women have an ultrasound "just because" or because it may, in rare cases, end up serving a medical purpose. However, I'm also not going to really believe the arguments made against such procedures either because they too are based largely on "just because" reasoning.
Sure, but that's exactly my point. Again, we've created a system where the government is going to act as a guide for "family planning" which means someone's agenda is going to dominate. There's a fundamental problem with that: there's no such thing as a universally right way to plan for a family. Furthermore, there's not even a universal definition of family. Once you assume that you have the right to define and guide that agenda for a population, you've granted that same right to anyone. That means you're going to have an agenda-driven body that represents the "family planning" goals of whoever happens to have social power today.
Touche
those here?
i don't know an abortion provider that doesn't do an ultrasound before surgery.
i wouldn't say everyone's agenda is to determine a right way to plan or define a family. in fact, there are people whose agenda it is to provide information on all current, available options and have the individuals decide.
cross the river to the eastside
But isn't reasonable to assume that due to his past working for an organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women" that he will not be too keen on spending the "$283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons.""
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok, then do you take issue with such ultrasounds in this case? If so, what's the difference?
Is an ultrasound not easily classified as "informative"? Is abstinence-education not easily classified as "educational"? Again, I'm failing to see how anything this guy is proposing cannot fall into the classifications people keep using here.
The main problem I see with this is the money funneled into this organization will not be used for the primary intention of this organization, ie, providing info and access to birth control. Yet, money will be spent on unneccesary ultrasounds.
But I can see your point about the gov't defining what 'family planning' or a 'family' is, however, I don't have a problem with an organization providing info & access to birth control, as long as they provide info & access to ALL the options. Both sides can be biased with information.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
yes because everyone i've spoken to who went to a clinic like that was harassed, lied to, and made to feel very guilty about their medical decisions. they were forced to look at an ultrasound and were often lied to about the gestation. clinics like that often trick people to get them in and then sometimes lock them in once they're there.
and they're providing a US just to talk them out of a procedure; it's not like they're offering any other kind of medical service there.
cross the river to the eastside
The "primary intention" of this organization is not providing info and access to birth control. The primary intention of this organization is the "provision of family planning and reproductive health care". Now, while to you that sentence means "condom pusher"
I don't have a problem with it either. There are great organizations that provide info & access to birth control and they should be supported. Furthermore, their leadership cannot be supplanted based on the whims of politicians!
Obviously I cannot argue with your personal experience. However, I'm curious why people are telling you about this? Who are your clientele here?
Do you not understand that they would most vehemently disagree here??? Deterring people from abortion, to a pro-lifer, is most certainly a "medical service" since they view it as medically unnecessary, dangerous, and unethical.
Again, I'm not defending such positions. What I'm trying to do is keep them from holding sway over my life. That's a double-edged sword, however, because it prevents me from pushing my positions on them. Pushing one "family planning" agenda on America is the sole purpose of this organization, which is why I completely oppose its existence.
pregnant women
well i can call myself 'carrie brownstein' but that doesn't mean i'm her. they aren't doing anything medical save for an ultrasound. persuading a person is not medical. perhaps a moral service, not medical.
cross the river to the eastside
And are these pregnant women who have decided to a) get abortions b) not get abortions or c) roughly 50/50 or d) it has nothing to do with abortions?
Of course persuading a person can be medical. It took me 15 years to persuade my father to get a damn colonostemy. Not a doctor's visit goes by without my doctor trying to persuade me to quit smoking. Every pro-choice argument revolves around persuading society to allow women their right to choose for her health while every pro-life argument revolves around persuading society to disallow women their right to choose for the child's health.
persuasion isn't a medical service. i think it can be medical in nature, but it's not a medical service. i can't go around on this. if this is where it's going i just don't have the time to spend.
cross the river to the eastside
As far as what makes him qualified, well you should know that most managerial skill sets are not industry or belief specific. But much more tied to communication, strategy identification and implementation, and organizational skills. So this person could be greatly qualified and you want to dismiss him. Does this mean we only want Judges that have been both defence or prosecuting attorneys? Or do we wactually want judges with the right skill set to be good judges?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley