Bush choice for family-planning post criticized

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

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.

surferdude

baraka wrote:

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.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

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.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

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?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

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"?

The rejection of it? The rejection by whom?

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

baraka

surferdude wrote:

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.

surferdude

baraka wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

The rejection of it? The rejection by whom?

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!

VictoryGin

sadly i don't have time to get dragged through minutiae, but i couldn't let something pass.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

baraka

surferdude wrote:

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.""

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

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!

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

Obviously I cannot argue with your personal experience. However, I'm curious why people are telling you about this? Who are your clientele here?

pregnant women

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

VictoryGin wrote:

pregnant women

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.

VictoryGin

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

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?