Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (11704)	4/17/2001 4:30:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The gag rule eliminates funding for contraceptives in Africa because another arm of the provider counsels on abortion in New Jersey. That's no more acceptable to me than genital mutilation. It only eliminates funding for the provider that does provide or recommend abortions, not for all possible contraceptive providers. Why not have groups that focus specifically on contraception or maybe even more specifically on contraception in the third world. Then they can get the money. In any case even starting with the assumptions that there is nothing wrong with abortion and that contraception in Africa is very important and that it should be funded by the US government - the issue is not similar to genital mutilation. The "gag rule" is about not giving specific groups federal money. Genital mutilation is a direct attack on someone. Tim