To: SecularBull who wrote (125597 ) 2/6/2001 1:52:20 PM From: E Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667 Do you think the AIDS-infected woman in the bolded paragraph below should be told where she might go to get a safe, legal abortion without the clinic losing funding for education, contraception, wellbaby clinics, antibiotics? Or should she be forced by the Bush policy to 1) bear the probably-infected child, if the birth happens before her death, or 2) choose abortion-with-a-stick in the bush? You fairly radiate the smugness of the zealot, so I suspect that in your mental universe this is a yes or no question. (Excerpts) AT HOME ABROAD Bush and AIDS, By ANTHONY LEWIS ...Every day about 15,000 are newly infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. .... As millions die around the world, leaving millions of orphans — as whole societies crumble — our moral posture will be challenged. So will our economic outlook, based as it is on global prosperity. ... George W. Bush, in his first major decision as president, took an action that will increase the spread of AIDS. That was his decision to deny U.S. aid to family-planning organizations abroad that inform women about medical options including abortion. Government funding of abortions abroad has been prohibited by law since 1973. The Bush rule says that clinics in developing countries will lose U.S. funds if they even discuss abortion with their patients. What it means on the ground is this: A woman who has AIDS comes to a clinic somewhere in Africa or Asia. Drugs to prevent transmission of the disease to newborn infants are not available there. She desperately wants to avoid bearing the child. But the doctor or nurse cannot advise her on a safe, legal abortion if the clinic wants to keep its American funds. ...The result? Families will not get contraceptives. Without them, more people will be infected with H.I.V. — and in due course develop AIDS.nytimes.com