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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (256807)	5/19/2002 5:26:33 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769667

Two 16-year-old girls who won prizes at a Paterson, N.J., teen fair for their essays touting abstinence over condom use in sex education were revealed in May to be pregnant They should be temporarily sterilized until they can pass a test. To me it shows they understood both methods but could practice neither. Oh well.

To: E who wrote (256807)	5/19/2002 11:27:23 PM
From: DOUG H	Respond to of 769667

I'm glad you replied because I'm not entirely comfortable with the way I responded in my initial posts. The condition you described is horrible and the existence of it and it's curability trouble me. It was the manner in which you posted the piece and the way the piece was written that I reacted to. But rather than take issue with that, let me just repeat, I think it's a tragedy that the medical attention to these ladies is being played as a political football. I think both sides are doing it. The UNPF has the money avaiable to deliver the care and we CERTAINLY have the money. The $80 billion farm welfare package is FAR more offensive than most things I've seen so far. In regards to the $300 million on promoting marraige and abstinence I have a couple of thoughts. You have to agree that pregnancy is 100% preventable. NO sex, no baby. No sex, no STDs. No sex, no aborted children. I hope you're willing to acknowledge that even voluntarty abortions with willing patients can have adverse,long term pschological[sic] consequences. Unwanted pregnacies, unwed mothers and fatherless children, who knows how much damage from STD's, AIDS........all products of sexual activity. Now, as you pointed out to me, we have a multi-billion $$ porn and actually now, even mainstream media pushing sex, sex, and more sex at our youths today. The liberal thinkers say, well, they are gonna do it anyways, (I think that was the purpose of your little story) so oh well, lets just make sure they do it safely....well, obviously, THAT"S NOT WORKING E!!!! If it was how do you explain all the problems described above?? Besides, you're approach can be likened to saying that because kids are going to stay up late and vandalize, let's leave the street lights on for them and make sure they have environmentally safe paint. What's wrong with trying to reach young ladies and letting them know they don't need to spread their legs to be cool? What's wrong with telling them it's okay to keep themselves for marriage? The same is true of young men. Are you okay with society measuring a young man's worth by how many chicks he bags? What's wrong with shaming those deadbeat lowlifes who abandon women they impregnate? The impression I get is your view of young men and ladies is that of animals, unable to restrain themselves from the instintual urges, eminating from their crotches. I'm not asking fish not to swim, wolves not to howl, or birds not to fly. I'm suggested that humans learn to restrain themselves for their own good and societies. You think I'm asking too much? I don't.

To: E who wrote (256807)	5/20/2002 1:47:55 AM
From: DOUG H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Same story without the gore. washingtonpost.com Abortion Issue Stalls U.N. Family Planning Funds By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 16, 2002; Page A06 At the behest of House GOP leaders, lawmakers voted yesterday to delete language from an emergency spending bill that would have forced the Bush administration to provide international family planning funds to the United Nations. The 32 to 30 vote by the Appropriations Committee represents the latest example of how the abortion wars have ensnared several unrelated bills in recent months. With a consensus on abortion rights still eluding Congress, lawmakers have engaged in a form of legislative hostage-taking, threatening to bring down bills that deal only tangentially with abortion. Last week, for example, the House Appropriations Committee adopted a provision that would compel the administration to release $34 million in previously appropriated funds by July 10 to the United Nations Family Planning Fund, an agency that serves women in developing countries. But Republican leaders, who say the agency implicitly endorses forced abortions and sterilizations in China by funding projects there, insisted on removing the language before passing an emergency defense spending bill. "My guess is, if you don't fix it, you don't pass the bill," House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.), told reporters. "It's a big deal." Congress and the White House agreed to appropriate the $34 million last year, but abortion opponents lobbied against releasing the money. The administration has frozen the funds, saying it is awaiting the results of a three-person investigative team the State Department dispatched to China on Sunday. But the U.N. agency insists it supports only voluntary family planning in China, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers have pressed the White House to release the money. If both chambers approve language similar to the original House amendment, the White House would have no choice but to release the funds. "This is about an agency that has nothing to do with abortion, that has nothing to do with coercion," said Susan Cohen, government affairs director for the Alan Guttmacher Institute. This week's fight over the emergency defense bill is not the only abortion-related congressional standoff. A bankruptcy bill, five years in the making, is stalled over a Senate provision that would prevent people from declaring bankruptcy as a way of ducking court-imposed fines or damages stemming from abortion clinic protests. Several House Republicans have balked at embracing the final bill, arguing the language introduced by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) targets a specific class of debtors -- abortion opponents. "It's really too bad that my good friend Senator Schumer has such an unyielding devotion to the cause of abortion that he would defeat a good bankruptcy bill," said Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.). Another bill, which would fund 3,500 community health centers, has been in limbo for five months, ever since Armey tried to insert language that would have allowed hospitals and health plans to opt out of providing abortion services and referrals. After several Democrats and Republicans told Armey they would fight his provision, the GOP abruptly pulled the otherwise noncontroversial bill. Several Republicans said abortion rights proponents are largely to blame for the disputes. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) said that under the measure Congress adopted last year Bush could spend "up to" $34 million on the U.N. family planning agency, but he was not compelled to do it. Tiahrt successfully offered an amendment yesterday leaving the question of whether to spend the money up to the White House, simply asking the administration to report to Congress by July 31 on whether the U.N. agency promotes forced abortions or sterilizations.