Third World Family Planning

[tasty]

Yahoo! News Story:
Study: U.S. Abortion Policy Closes African Clinics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s anti-abortion policy has forced family planning clinics in poor countries to close, leaving some communities without any healthcare, according to a report issued Wednesday.
 
 Even faith-based clinics that promote abstinence -- in line with White House policy -- have had to close, according to organizers.
 
 Under the policy, known as the Mexico City rule by supporters and the Global Gag rule by opponents, foreign family planning agencies cannot receive U.S. funds if they provide abortion services or lobby to make or keep abortion legal in their own country.
 
 A survey of Ethiopia, Kenya, Romania and Zambia by Population Action International and the Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America showed the rule had forced clinics to close and left many men and women without access to contraceptives that could prevent both unwanted pregnancies and AIDS (news - web sites).
 
 "You cannot separate HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS, reproductive health and abortion," said Hillary Fyfe, who heads the Family Life Movement of Zambia, a faith-based group working with adolescents on sex education.
 
 While her group does not promote abortion or even condom use, it does talk about the possibility, and that was enough to lose U.S. funding, Fyfe said. Three clinics in Lusaka closed this year.
 
 "We taught natural family planning and abstinence until marriage," Fyfe said in an interview. Now her group will be unable to holds its workshops unless they can find alternative funding, Fyfe said.
 
 The same is happening in several countries, according to the report.
 
 "Health services have been scaled back and closings of reproductive health clinics have left some communities with no healthcare provider," the group wrote in a statement.
 
 HURTING AIDS EFFORTS
 
 The policy has also hurt AIDS prevention efforts, said the group, which published the findings on the Internet at www.globalgagrule.org.
 
 As one of his first acts in office in 2001, Bush reinstated the rule that former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), a Democrat, had lifted. The rule was originally imposed in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) at a Mexico City conference.
 
 Last month Bush ordered the State Department to strengthen the rule by withholding U.S. family planning help from overseas groups that promote or perform abortions with their own money.
 
 Five family planning clinics run by nongovernmental organizations have closed in Kenya because they refused the restrictions and lost funding from the U.S. Agency for International development, the report said.
 
 "As a result, they are prevented from participating in a large-scale integrated health care program funder by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which curtails the effectiveness and reach of the program," the report reads.
 
 In Kenya's Mathare Valley, a family planning clinic closed, leaving 300,000 people with no healthcare services. "And there is no other family planning or reproductive health clinic nearby," the report said.
 
 In Romania, women may be more likely to get abortions, not fewer, because the rule has meant more women cannot get any information on contraceptives that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, the report said.
 
 "This is the real face of Bush's compassionate conservatism -- a war on the world's most vulnerable women and children, who bear the brunt of Bush's obsession with appeasing his domestic political base," Planned Parenthood's Gloria Feldt said in a statement.
 
But White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the policy only affected family planning clinics, not general health clinics.
 
"The president had just unveiled a $15 billion program to address the biggest healthcare crisis facing Africa, which is AIDS," she said in a telephone interview. "Any organization that wants to participate in delivering healthcare services relating to AIDS can do so."

I think this is messed up. By enacting ideologically-driven policies, the Bush administration is messing up healthcare for thousands of people. This policy will help no one; I realize that it isn't the responsibility of the US to fund abortions for whoever wants them, but not making contraception available is just stupid. This policy will not convince people in LDCs to abstain until marriage either. All it will do is create more unwanted pregnancies, which will either result in dangerous, life-threatening illegal abortions, or additional children that will serve to exacerbate poverty even more. In my opinion, this is counterproductivity at its finest.

[Cutter]

tasty i've found the answers to this problem. it's nothing new really, in fact it's really fun.
 
   one word: FACIAL  

another ridiculous attempt to blame america and president bush for every fucking thing that has ever gone wrong in the world. every man is responsible for his own actions. getting a woman pregnant is one of the best examples out there.
i'm pro-choice just so ya know, there are definatly times when abortion needs to be available. however, i don't see how it's our responsibility to provide abortions for the world. medicine and vaccinations yes, abortions, no. we provide more money and medicine for underdeveloped countries than the other top 10 counties combined. when president bush put up the 15 billion for AIDS, the critics came out in droves, claiming its not even close enough. compare our 15 billion to what any of the so-called civilized european countries have put up. it's not even close by any comparison. there are many illnesses that you can unknowingly get from having sex, a baby is not one of them. knockin a woman up is a choice, to pull out or not to pull out. that is the question.

[bronto]

i don't see how it's our responsibility to provide abortions for the world.

President Bush's anti-abortion policy has forced family planning clinics in poor countries to close, leaving some communities without any healthcare

he's not just talking about abortions here you slick ignoramous noob. read the posts before you try to flame someone who is obviously more intelligent and less noobier then yourself.

[Cutter]

bronto, in no way was it an attemt to start a flame war (infact your post seemed to be just that) and i did read the post. i speak to tasty just about everytime i see him in gr. i like your attempt to show your intelligence by attacking what you know of mine though. *note bronto's drug experimentaion post*...it'll take much more than a little boy that takes dramamine to get a buzz when his mommy ain't watchin' to take me on. please pick your fights more carefully in the future bronto, they may have a bigger impact on your life than you could ever imagine.

[Cutter]

in fact, fuck you bronto! just about all of the posts i've ever made here has been in response to one of tasty's posts. he always (well most of the time)  puts up very intelligent socially important topics that get the most responses in the forums. everybody has different opinions especially when it comes to topics like this. thats what the forums are for. not to start shit.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Wait a minute here Tasty.  I thought you were against the US Government giving money to other agencies in the first place?

My problems with this:

1) The Smith Gag Act, as it's called now, doesn't allow our government to give aid to non-government organizations that support abortion.  So, we can't give money to profit or non-profit agencies, just other governments, in this case.

2) If Planned Parenthood is the sole avenue for healthcare as your post most clearly represents, then these people have a lot more issues to deal with then abortion money being pulled.  How about that money goes to funding a health clinic, and not an abortion clinic?  Wouldn't that do the community as a whole better?

3) You argued before about how evil it is to kill their children, but now you argue for it as population control.

4) You had a large economic spin in your anti war posts.  Where is it now?  Why should the USA spend tax money (and that is what we are talking about here) on family planning and abortions for these third world countries?

5) You have to remember that abortion is a split topic in our own country, and that I don't want my tax money going towards it here, let alone in other countries.

[bronto]

please pick your fights more carefully in the future bronto, they may have a bigger impact on your life than you could ever imagine.

lol. you can whine and try to scare me all you want, but it still doesn't mean you're not completely wrong with what you replied to tasty. further your noobie status on these forums.

btw nice double post.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

And yes Bronto, Cutter being new to the forums is a great argument against his points.

It's not like having over 700 posts makes you any smarter.

[bronto]

yes, i do have over 700 posts, and by the looks of it, i am smarter then cutter. what you and cutter are missing, is that he didn't read the post then proceeded to act like a cocky asshole telling tasty to get a facial, while rambling on about abortions and his political stance when he completely missed tasty's point.

[Jeb]

i love how bronto criticizes people for starting flamewars by starting his own flamewar.
-jeb
ps. in the psychological world this sort of thing is known as "borderline attention whoredom"

[Brain]

yes,...by the looks of it, i am smarter then cutter.

obviously another of bronto's drug induced hallucinations

[Cutter]

bronto either you don't know what a facial is or you just didn't get it. my point was that givin a girl a facial is a great alternative to getting her pregnant. i never told tasty to get a facial anywhere. lol read the post you nyquill chuggin pillow biter.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

yes, i do have over 700 posts, and by the looks of it, i am smarter then cutter.

Only looks that way to you so far.

what you and cutter are missing, is that he didn't read the post then proceeded to act like a cocky asshole telling tasty to get a facial,

What did I miss?  Here you go showing your stupidity by telling me what I missed.  And there you are saying that he told Tasty to "get" a facial.  LOL.  That was sarcasim about how not to get a chick pregnant.  

Stop trying to look smarter then you are Bronto, and just face the fact that you flew off at Cutter for no good reason.  

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Two Words for you tasty:

Al Franken

[tasty]

Wait a minute here Tasty.  I thought you were against the US Government giving money to other agencies in the first place?

I don't support the US government keeping our finances completely to ourselves. I think some level of humanitarian aid is not only acceptable, but necessary. Like it or not as the world economic leader we play a somewhat paternalistic role in the world, and what adds up to chump change in our yearly budget can bring serious help or social change to third world countries in dire conditions. Obviously Africa has an AIDS crisis, and thankfully we as a nation have tried to help them overcome this epidemic in various ways. I am just concerned about this particular issue because Bush's efforts to win a moral war at home are perverting the relief effort.

1) The Smith Gag Act, as it's called now, doesn't allow our government to give aid to non-government organizations that support abortion.  So, we can't give money to profit or non-profit agencies, just other governments, in this case.

I don't know how this money is disseminated to get to health care clinics, whether we are giving our money to non-profits or governments or a combination of the two. If this is the same as the Mexico City rule, then it was just re-enacted by Bush in 2001 and it is the exact thing I am opposing with this thread.

2) If Planned Parenthood is the sole avenue for healthcare as your post most clearly represents, then these people have a lot more issues to deal with then abortion money being pulled.  How about that money goes to funding a health clinic, and not an abortion clinic?  Wouldn't that do the community as a whole better?

My concern, as was detailed in my small analysis paragraph at the bottom, was not the removal of funding from abortion clinics. The concern came with the removal of funding from family planning clinics that might mention abortion as a possible option. This is different from funding abortion, especially since as was revealed in the Yahoo article, many of these clinics strongly recommend against abortion anyway - its just that the mere mention of its existance can get your funding yanked. Even worse than this is removing funding from clinics that provide contraception. Although I can understand where people are coming from claiming abortion is immoral, those that claim contraception is immoral have no justification except extremist religious beliefs. Contraception is a valuable tool for fighting pregnancy and STDs in both the first and the third world, and to remove funding for them is atrocious.

I recognize that it goes against what is customary in the US for family planning clinics to be connected to healthcare, but in Africa both family planning and abortion clinics may be connected to the the hospital. Saving money is essential for these clinics as they run on a very limited budget, and to close down an entire health clinic because it was somehow connected with abortion seems morally reprehensible to me. I agree that the money is better spent on healthcare than abortion, and I would have no objection to the money being used to build a new healthcare clinic. However, if you read the article you will realize that this is not what is happening -- the clinic is just closing and funding is being removed. How is this going to help anyone?

3) You argued before about how evil it is to kill their children, but now you argue for it as population control.

When did I argue how it is evil for people to, as you so tastefully say,  "kill their children"? I don't recall ever making an anti-abortion argument on this or any other forum. And that's not to say I necessarily support abortion; it's just that it's a difficult decision that I hope I never have to make. That doesn't change the argument for providing contraceptives or counseling on abortions though, which is obviously different than performing them or providing funding to perform them. Also, note that I never said anything about population control. I view it as poverty control: some people have neither the knowledge nor the financial means to raise a child. To bring a child into that environment is to only cause hardship for the child and the mother. I recognize and respect the importance and sanctity of life, even a life that is lived in the throes of poverty, which is why I would never counsel someone directly to get an abortion. I would however not object to either of the previously mentioned options: abstinence-only family planning that informs of abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancy, or family planning that makes available contraceptives for general use.

4) You had a large economic spin in your anti war posts.  Where is it now?  Why should the USA spend tax money (and that is what we are talking about here) on family planning and abortions for these third world countries?

Simple human mercy. We easily have the ways and means to help Africa cope with their problem, so I think that we should help them. I recognize that this is a matter of my personal preference and that you and others perhaps think differently. However, looking at our national budget there are a lot of other superfluous expenditures that you would have to justify away before we get to removing funding for family planning. As I said before, this is only a tiny portion of our national budget. If America wants these countries to follow our lead, to trade, to modernize, to become capitalist democracies, we have to throw them a bone. With people starving and dying of diseases, they have no reason to care. I say we give them a reason to care by pledging a small amount of our tax money to help them solve their problems. Not only do I think that it can possibly pay off well in the future (in a Marshall Plan sort of way). I personally am happy to see my tax money go towards this initiative, and although I have no poll numbers on this issue, I'm sure a fair portion of my fellow Americans wouldn't mind it either.

5) You have to remember that abortion is a split topic in our own country, and that I don't want my tax money going towards it here, let alone in other countries.

I realize this, which is why I didn't gear my post toward reproductive rights. I already addressed it pretty well I think in my responses to your other five points, but if you have more to say on it later go ahead.

[tasty]

another ridiculous attempt to blame america and president bush for every fucking thing that has ever gone wrong in the world.

I don't blame America or Bush for Africa's AIDS epidemic. I praise our efforts thus far to help them with it. My criticism was for Bush's changes to those efforts, changes that in my opinion hurt the aid we are currently giving them and thus needlessly harm their health programs.

every man is responsible for his own actions. getting a woman pregnant is one of the best examples out there.

Agreed. I think that large part of us overcoming this epidemic in Africa will be understanding just why people there are willing to go against common sense with their sexual actions and then coming up with a solution to change those attitudes.

i'm pro-choice just so ya know, there are definatly times when abortion needs to be available. however, i don't see how it's our responsibility to provide abortions for the world.

And if you'll notice, I never object to our removal of funding for abortions. My objections were to us removing funding for family planning clinics that counsel abortions, clinics that give out contraceptives, and clinics that may have involvement with abortion but also provide other health care procedures for their community that are non-abortion related.

medicine and vaccinations yes, abortions, no. we provide more money and medicine for underdeveloped countries than the other top 10 counties combined. when president bush put up the 15 billion for AIDS, the critics came out in droves, claiming its not even close enough. compare our 15 billion to what any of the so-called civilized european countries have put up. it's not even close by any comparison.

Actually, according to "World Military and Social Expenditures" (a book I so handily keep by my desk for these situations), here are the stats on US foreign aid:

in 1964 this would have been true, as we were responsible for 60% of the total world aid provided

However, as of 2000 we give out only 16% of the total aid. Japan gives 20% more aid than us, and France gives the same amount as us, even though their economies are much, much smaller.