I'm sure your concern extends beyond the seat at your computer.
I've called the White House and my congressmans's offices, (the one in D.C. and his local office.) It's not much, but it does entail going "beyond the seat of your computer."
This is how you call the WH line for expressing your opinion, in case there's anybody who's never done it:
202-456-1111
To email, it's: president@whitehouse.gov
BTW, what the piece fails to mention is exactly why it is the responibility of US taxpayers to foot the bill. Perhaps you can address that.
All of us taxpayers have priorities, and have ideas about what we want our country and president to stand for. "More genital mutilation, more AIDS and more fistula" is not what I want mine to stand for.
The question is, really, why President Bush is blocking the 34 million dollars that was appropriated. Isn't he the compassionate conservative president? Or is he just another politician???
The critics falsely portray the issue as one of abortion. In fact, the population fund does not support abortion services; on the contrary, the cutoff of $34 million could result in an additional 800,000 abortions per year because of less contraception available. The reality is that the population fund is active not only in providing contraception but also in waging a lonely struggle to oppose female genital mutilation, the spread of AIDS and the scourge of mothers dying in childbirth.
It surprises me, actually, that any normal human being could read that article and respond as you have.
continued... |
