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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (13911)	10/26/2003 1:32:11 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 794411

What kind of ridiculous notion is this? Is the author asserting that we are now responsible for the health care knowledge of every person on the planet? If he were, then it would be ridiculous, I agree. Perhaps that wasn't the best explanation to post. It was just the first one I came upon and I thought it would be adequate. What happened was that he withdrew funds already appropriated for foreign assistance. The funds had been going for family planning to international organizations that do that sort of thing. He cut off funds to, for example, Planned Parenthood's clinics in, say, Uganda not because PP was offering abortion information in Uganda but because they were offering it in, say, Baltimore. In effect, this reduced aid to people who desperately need it not because those appropriated funds would would be used for abortion but because the conduit for those funds, the provider, was engaged in abortion activities some other place in the world with some other funds. Given that condoms are life saving in that part of the world, women die in childbirth all the time, and AIDS is wrecking the place, I find that ghastly. E knows this stuff inside out and perhaps can explain it in more detail. E, are you there?