"Running for the White House in the fall of 2000, George W. Bush did not talk about ending the right to abortion. To avoid scaring off moderate voters, he promoted a larger "reverence for life" agenda that also included adoption and tougher drunken driving laws. Voters were encouraged to believe that while Mr. Bush was anti-choice, he was not out to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Yet two years into the Bush presidency, it is apparent that reversing or otherwise eviscerating the Supreme Court's momentous 1973 ruling that recognized a woman's fundamental right to make her own childbearing decisions is indeed Mr. Bush's mission. The lengthening string of anti-choice executive orders, regulations, legal briefs, legislative maneuvers and key appointments emanating from his administration suggests that undermining the reproductive freedom essential to women's health, privacy and equality is a major preoccupation of his administration — second only, perhaps, to the war on terrorism."
...."President Bush's assault on reproductive rights is part of a larger ongoing cultural battle. If abortion were the only target, the administration would not be attempting to block women's access to contraceptives, which drive down the number of abortions. His administration would not be declaring war on any sex education that discusses ways, beyond abstinence, to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Scientifically accurate information about contraceptives and abortion would not have begun disappearing from federal government Web sites."
....."The effects of the new anti-choice agenda are also affecting women abroad. On his very first day on the job, the president reimposed the odious global "gag" rule first instituted by President Ronald Reagan, then lifted by President Bill Clinton in January 1993. It bars health providers receiving American family planning assistance from counseling women about abortion, engaging in political speech on abortion or providing abortion services, even with their own money."
......"Most Americans would be shocked at the lengths American representatives are going to in their international war against women's right to control their bodies.
Last year, Bush administration delegates to the United Nations Special Session on Children tried to block a plan to promote children's well-being and rights, taking offense at language promising "reproductive health services." This same crackerjack delegation also opposed special efforts to help young girls who are victims of war crimes — which most often means rape. The delegates were worried that the measure would be construed to provide these victims with information about emergency contraception or abortion.
The administration's anti-choice obsession has also prompted it to freeze millions of dollars in financing for valuable programs run by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Population Fund to advance reproductive health and combat H.I.V. and AIDS.
Last summer, the president withdrew his support for Senate ratification of a women's rights treaty that requires nations to remove barriers of discrimination against women in areas like legal rights and health care. Just last month, at a United Nations' population conference in Bangkok, the American delegation made an embarrassing, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to block an endorsement of condom use to prevent AIDS."
posted on January 12, 2003 04:12:18 PM new
Very interesting! I was just reading the Washington Post and the article below makes almost parallel observations to those in the Times' article in explaining Bush's approach to his Iraq agenda.
posted on January 12, 2003 06:53:31 PM new
It's an amazment to me how Republican can talk out of one side of their mouths about how much they support modern cultural concepts towards women and from the other side, denounce any and all attempts to allow women to have the right to their own bodies and its functions. Such a right to one's own bodily functions is as fundamental as freedom is to slaves. And women that will not be made into slaves ought to consider just which party it is that they really support.
posted on January 12, 2003 07:21:41 PM new
I guess this is payback time for the votes of religious rights or religious radicals or whatever they call themselves.
Isn't it a kind of radical contradiction to be pro-life and pro-war?
posted on January 13, 2003 08:06:55 AM newMr. Bush has begun packing the judiciary with individuals whose hostility to Roe v. Wade matches his own and that of his famously anti-choice attorney general, John Ashcroft.
Just as each administration does when they are in office. We must remember there are many, not just the very far right, who agree with different parts of these changes he's trying to make.
Why should one 'sides' [liberals] opinions be the only one's allowed, when so many in this country agree with a lot of what's being changed?
posted on January 13, 2003 09:08:29 AM new
<quote>
Why should one 'sides' [liberals] opinions be the only one's allowed, when so many in this country agree with a lot of what's being changed?
<end quote>
It seems that an abundance of your views are being "allowed", Linda and "what's being changed" reflects those views.
posted on January 13, 2003 10:44:39 AM new
>Why should one 'sides' [liberals] opinions be the only one's allowed, when so many in this country agree with a lot of what's being changed?
The reason is that the multitude of choices is being eliminated by these far-right types. Right now, you as a woman can make a choice of your own to live with. Soon, you will not be able to. The less choices that one has, the less Freedom that one has. The less freedomn that one has, the more of a Slave that they are.
Do you, Linda, look forward to being a Slave? A piece of Property for Men? To have NO RIGHTS because you were born a Woman? That is their agenda, Linda. That is why their viewpoint is WRONG!
posted on January 13, 2003 11:15:03 AM new
I don't see this as a war against women, but rather support for those women [and men] who feel/think differently. Again, that's why we vote for those who support the issues that are important to us as individuals.
I see some of Bush's plan [reverence for life] as protection of the fetus' that are killed, say when a woman is physically attacked. I think if a pregnant woman is murdered her attacker should be charged with two murders. I see support to the unborn child to have the proper care and nourishment it needs to be a healthy child. Those fetus' who have intrauterine surgeries are growing humans. Their lives can be saved with surgeries like blood transfusions, surgeries on Spina Bifida, kidney failures, etc.
I disagree with late term abortions....partial birth abortions. If the unborn child can be removed by C-section and survive why should we suck their brains out to be sure they don't stand a chance.
"Block women's access to contraceptives" [and abortions]...no blocking, just the federal government not paying for them.
"Abstinence" There's absolutely no reason this can't be taught as one of the safest methods of both preventing pregnancy and eliminating STDs. Along with other education.
posted on January 13, 2003 03:32:02 PM new
There's a difference between making minor corrections; such as, regulating under just which circumstances that a thrid-trimester abortion can be done. It is instead a whole different matter when the solution to a problem is to abolish all parts of it; i.e. abortion illegal, any or all parts of it. Yes, a slick way to get that type of agenda in is to pretend that you are only going to go just so far and then stop, when what you are really trying to do is to wedge a foot in the door to thrust your whole agenda down everyone's throats. Since Bush and the GOP have stated their complete support for the absoute criminalization of any abortion whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever, I'm inclinded to disbelieve that they have any intention of stopping short of their complete stated goals.
Realize too, that the Criminalization of Abortion is only a single step. Many of the GOP have stated just how much further that they'd like to "roll-back" Women's Rights. "What do women need extra rights for anyway?" they argue. "Existing laws cover all of the bases -- women simply don't need any extra rights that the rest of us aren't entitled too!"
posted on January 13, 2003 06:09:25 PM new
How about the ones with Sexual Harassment on the job? How about anti-Stalking laws? (Yep, they don't want that law either!) Things along those lines.
Now, I'm not saying that every Republican politican is out to put Women "back into their place -- barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen." But certainly, there are plenty who see this as going against what God wants the "natural order" to be in their view; or, they just miss the "Good Ole Days" of female servitude and bondage. You know, back when Women were Women and Men were Men? That kind of mentality pervades the Republican Party and many have publically stated that agenda; either in books or in the media (no, I don't have links).
posted on January 13, 2003 06:18:28 PM new
As I see it with Roe v Wade in place no one is forced to have an abortion but the option is there.Each person can do as their beliefs allow.
Without Roe v Wade there is no option except for a return to the back alleys where many women were mutilated or died. Only one type of belief is allowed whether YOU believe it or not.
For the life of me I cannot see how that can be right in a free society.
posted on January 13, 2003 06:20:53 PM new
"That kind of mentality pervades the Republican Party and many have publically stated that agenda; either in books or in the media."
That type of thinking has no political field,It runs rampant with insecure men.
posted on January 13, 2003 08:25:24 PM new
>Borillar,I still want to know what extra's, I as a woman will lose.
You've lost your reading comprehension, again. I never said that I thought those were "special rights". I said that was what THEY say! If you want more examples and clarification, just go to the Republican Party and ask them.
posted on January 13, 2003 08:35:02 PM new
If THEY said it,Then why dont you know what THEY said.Its one thing to be against a political party,and quite another to slander with lies and plan old bull patties.
posted on January 13, 2003 08:51:22 PM newRealize too, that the Criminalization of Abortion is only a single step. Many of the GOP have stated just how much further that they'd like to "roll-back" Women's Rights. "What do women need extra rights for anyway?" they argue. "Existing laws cover all of the bases -- women simply don't need any extra rights that the rest of us aren't entitled too!"
I'll bet you agree with that as well.
You've lost your reading comprehension, again. I never said that I thought those were "special rights". I said that was what THEY say! If you want more examples and clarification, just go to the Republican Party and ask them.
posted on January 13, 2003 09:53:19 PM new
I believe Borillar used "extra rights" to mean the idea certain people have that codifying women's rights equals giving them "special rights." Much the same charge is leveled today against homosexuals who merely lobby for their civil rights. The thinking being that since American women are, as US citizens, theoretically covered by the same protections as men under law, they have no need of special laws ("rights" ) to protect them.
Take spousal abuse. Percentage-wise, this crime is almost totally against women. There *are* cases of women beating up on men, yes, but it's not common. These day's, though, you are sure to have people jump up in any discussion on the subject to state how unfair it is that the laws specifically refer to women's protection & don't include men.
Take abortion. Late term or partial birth abortions are *rare*. And done with cause--a woman can't just decide to have such an abortion. But that is the first thing that is trotted out these days when abortion is mentioned, making it sound as if late term or partial birth abortions take place everyday, several times a day. This is played up big-time, in an effort to deny women the right to abortion and control of their own bodies.
Why should there be amendments anymore guaranteeing women (or blacks for that matter) the right to vote? After all, the thinking goes, that is a right enjoyed by all Americans (yet another reason to start teaching US history seriously again).
It goes on & on. The thinking being that women just don't need all those "special rights" they've fought so hard for--after all, men don't have laws written especially for them...
edited for UBB
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 13, 2003 10:17 PM ]
posted on January 13, 2003 10:18:06 PM new
You're welcome Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 13, 2003 10:49:29 PM new
Bunni,Borillar made a broad statement about womens rights being rolled back, other then abortion rights.If someone is discussing loseing any of my rights,I want to know who said it,and when,and I want to know what rights, I will be loseing.
And the reason there arent any laws written for men,Is because men wrote the laws,without any thought of a womans right.
posted on January 14, 2003 12:07:48 AM new
Swoosh! My post went right over your head, didn't it? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 14, 2003 04:56:41 AM new
Okay, here's another way to put everything and I hope not too many of you blast me out of the water for it:
What I choose to do with my body is MY business. It is not the business of president Bush, Congress, the House or the Right to Life organization. I will NOT EVER allow someone to tell me what I can and cannot do with the body I walk around in everyday. If I choose to get an abortion, my choice! If I choose to gain 100 pounds, my choice! If I choose to enlarge my breasts to the point of falling on my face, again my choice!
Roe v. Wade was a monumental decision that played a huge part in giving women more of what men had everyday since the beginning of time: A CHOICE! That is what this is really all about to me. And THAT is my opinion.
Take away this Right and more will follow. Bush should be a "man" and just come right out and say what he means and not hide behind the garble. The 50's are over, Mr. Bush. Get with the program!
posted on January 14, 2003 06:27:41 AM newIf I choose to gain 100 pounds, my choice! If I choose to enlarge my breasts to the point of falling on my face, again my choice!
ANNA NICOLE SMITH! Good to see you here! And it types!
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
