Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized

[sandorski]

Bare foot, pregnant, and cooking a 3 course meal and Dessert for your man is the only Meaningful existance a Woman can have!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bare foot, pregnant, and cooking a 3 course meal and Dessert for your man is the only Meaningful existance a Woman can have!

Make it sound like having a family is bad, more so it?s entirely off topic.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bare foot, pregnant, and cooking a 3 course meal and Dessert for your man is the only Meaningful existance a Woman can have!

Make it sound like having a family is bad, more so it?s entirely off topic.

You really shouldn't be posting on these forums, if you can't figure what pregnancy and birth control have to do with each other.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bare foot, pregnant, and cooking a 3 course meal and Dessert for your man is the only Meaningful existance a Woman can have!

Make it sound like having a family is bad, more so it?s entirely off topic.

Is that seriously your view of women in family?! :laugh:

 

[andy9o]

I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: andy9o
I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

 

[andy9o]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: andy9o
I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

So... they can't learn about sex and the dangers of therein. They can't use condoms to prevent the transmission of diseases or unwanted babies. They can't get rid of babies if they do have them. So, under that ideology, who is going to adopt the unwanted babies? All heterosexual couples (married, of course) will obviously have their own, what with the lack of contraceptives. And we can't let homosexuals adopt, that would be horrible and could end civilization.... Soylent Baby?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: andy9o

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: andy9o
I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

So... they can't learn about sex and the dangers of therein. They can't use condoms to prevent the transmission of diseases or unwanted babies. They can't get rid of babies if they do have them. So, under that ideology, who is going to adopt the unwanted babies? All heterosexual couples (married, of course) will obviously have their own, what with the lack of contraceptives. And we can't let homosexuals adopt, that would be horrible and could end civilization.... Soylent Baby?

Soylent Baby is... babies!!!

I never said it makes sense. Who knows how the mind of a fundie works.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: andy9o
I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

I beg to differ. Liberals, by far, have a prevailing sense of "live and let live." It's the asshat religious whackjobs on the right that are sticking their noses in everyone's businesses on a regular basis. This thread is proof of that.

The religious right doesn't want sex education unless it's abstinence-only. Check. They don't want freely available contraception nor the education with which to use contraception properly. Check. They don't want abortions. Check. To top it off, they want to inflict their brand of ignorance and narrow-minded thinking on everyone else by attempting to pass legislation that favors their ignorant perspective or otherwise force their views on everyone by seizing control of various federal agencies.

 

[Gibsons]

He's a uniter, not a divider.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett
They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

I beg to differ. Liberals, by far, have a prevailing sense of "live and let live." It's the asshat religious whackjobs on the right that are sticking their noses in everyone's businesses on a regular basis. This thread is proof of that.

The religious right doesn't want sex education unless it's abstinence-only. Check. They don't want freely available contraception nor the education with which to use contraception properly. Check. They don't want abortions. Check. To top it off, they want to inflict their brand of ignorance and narrow-minded thinking on everyone else by attempting to pass legislation that favors their ignorant perspective or otherwise force their views on everyone by seizing control of various federal agencies.

I beg to differ. Liberals are "live and let live" only when it suits their agenda. They're quite happy to tell me I shouldn't use drugs, shouldn't visit prostitutes, shouldn't gamble, shouldn't smoke cigarettes, shouldn't ingest food with the wrong corn syrup or fat. Oh, liberals are quite ready to tell everyone how to live. The only difference is that you think liberals are correct on all of those issues. If you actually wanted the freedom to do those things, however bad they may be for you, you'd understand how both sides want to control everyone.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: andy9o
I would think that fundies would be all in support of contraceptive use. More education and contraceptive use means less abortions...

They unfortunately have a schizophrenic view of family planning. Contraception is bad, abortion is bad, but they have yet to adopt every child currently in foster care. It's just more of the typical sticking their nose in everybody else's business that people on both fringe ends of the spectrum adore.

I beg to differ. Liberals, by far, have a prevailing sense of "live and let live." It's the asshat religious whackjobs on the right that are sticking their noses in everyone's businesses on a regular basis. This thread is proof of that.

The religious right doesn't want sex education unless it's abstinence-only. Check. They don't want freely available contraception nor the education with which to use contraception properly. Check. They don't want abortions. Check. To top it off, they want to inflict their brand of ignorance and narrow-minded thinking on everyone else by attempting to pass legislation that favors their ignorant perspective or otherwise force their views on everyone by seizing control of various federal agencies.

Wait, I'd like to correct my previous statement. Where liberals tend to get into trouble is with the issue of gun rights. Personally, I have no issues with gun ownership by law-abiding folks. But! The liberal elites definitely do have a problem. It's something I wish they'd stop focusing on and pull towards the (more moderate) center a bit more.

 

[DealMonkey]

Jinx! Gotcha, point taken and you are correct, extreme left liberals ARE just as bad. I stand corrected.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I beg to differ. Liberals are "live and let live" only when it suits their agenda. They're quite happy to tell me I shouldn't use drugs, shouldn't visit prostitutes, shouldn't gamble, shouldn't smoke cigarettes, shouldn't ingest food with the wrong corn syrup or fat. Oh, liberals are quite ready to tell everyone how to live. The only difference is that you think liberals are correct on all of those issues. If you actually wanted the freedom to do those things, however bad they may be for you, you'd understand how both sides want to control everyone.

For the record, I'm in favor of all those things. (If that's your thing)

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Jinx! Gotcha, point taken and you are correct, extreme left liberals ARE just as bad. I stand corrected.

We're agreed then.

When discussing political persuasion the term left wing and right wing are bandied about, and I think people often view it as a line. I see it as a circle. On this circle, freedom is at the bottom. As you go clockwise on the circle (to the left of freedom) you add more social programs, workers rights, environmental causes. As you go counter-clockwise (to the right of freedom) you see business programs, tax complaints, and moral issues. Go to far on either side and you reach the top of the circle which is fascism. Regardless of how you got there, it's the antithesis of freedom.

 

[DealMonkey]

Perhaps I'm more libertarian than liberal. Hmmmm, something to ponder...

 

[wiin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'll tell you one thing, Bush clearly hasn't learned his lesson about extremism. The American voters sent a message to the GOP that they had strayed too far from the center. So what does Bush do? Of course he nominates some Christian nutjob to a post where he will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that are designed to "...provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all..."

Bush Choice for Family-Planning Post Criticized

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $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 appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, was the latest provocative personnel move by the White House since Democrats won control of Congress in this month's midterm elections. President Bush last week pushed the Senate to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and this week renominated six candidates for appellate court judgeships who have previously been blocked by lawmakers. Democrats said the moves belie Bush's post-election promises of bipartisanship.

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

Keroack was traveling and could not be reached for comment. John O. Agwunobi, assistant secretary for health, said Keroack "is highly qualified and a well-respected physician . . . working primarily with women and girls in crisis."

Mark Conrad, president of A Woman's Concern, said Keroack would be able to make the transition to leading a federal program in which provision of birth control is an integral part. "I don't think it's going to be an issue for him," he said.

The group helps women in unplanned pregnancies but discourages abortions, Conrad said. He said the decision is the woman's but "we do want to give her the opportunity to have all the information and the support necessary to choose life."

Marilyn Keefe, interim president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents 4,000 family-planning clinics, said Keroack's work "seems to really be geared toward furthering anti-choice, anti-contraception policies." She added that despite the congressional election results, the appointment "goes to show you the importance of controlling the White House and how important federal agencies are in the delivery of health services."

The federal family-planning program, created in 1970, supports a network of 4,600 family-planning clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. Services include patient education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, and screenings for cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called Keroack's appointment "striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities."

Taken together, Keroack's appointment, the Bolton push and the judicial renominations suggest that although Bush may work for consensus with Democrats on selected issues, he does not plan to avoid decisions simply because lawmakers will disagree, and he may in fact seek fights in some instances when he feels they may be useful politically.

Confirmation of Bolton and the judicial nominees are popular causes with Bush's conservative base, and a family-planning chief from an organization that opposes contraceptives may appeal to disaffected social conservatives.

White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino cautioned against reading a larger pattern into the recent moves, saying, "You have to look at these things in isolation."

She added: "The president has said we will look to reach common ground where we can find it. However, he's not going to compromise on his principles."

WaPo

When is Bush gonna learn that unless his nominees are for abortion, homosexuality,welfare, and govrnment funding of condom distribution, he's not gonna get the people he wants?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How come everybody wants to come to the United States if the United States is so bad?"


"People who are talking all the time, not caring to listen, are the symbol of ignorance."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: wiinWhen is Bush gonna learn that unless his nominees are for abortion, homosexuality,welfare, and govrnment funding of condom distribution, he's not gonna get the people he wants?

Well assigning some dude who has stated that "contraception is demeaning to women" to oversee the nearly $300 Mil in federal funding for exactly that purpose (ensuring access to and information regarding contraception) is = to assigning some guy who worked for the International Arabian Horse Association to oversee FEMA. And hey, we know how well that worked out.

Bush has a knack for choosing the most ironic (and unqualified) candidates for his federal vacancies. What does he do for an encore? Hire Mike Tyson to a federal agency whose mission is to help rape victims?