Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on January 26, 2006, 04:11:45 PM
-
Twice Victimized
Jennifer Nevins
January 26, 2006
Jennifer Nevins is state strategies attorney
What would George W. do? When it comes to protecting rape victims from becoming pregnant as a result of assault, apparently nothing.
In September 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the first-ever national protocol for treating sexual assault victims. The otherwise comprehensive document didn't include information about emergency contraception (EC). Oversight? Not likely. Press reports indicate that earlier drafts of the protocol included information about pregnancy prevention and, more specifically, EC.
Emergency contraception, often referred to as “the morning-after pill,” reduces the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if the first dose is taken within days of unprotected intercourse. The sooner it is taken, the more effective it is. So it would make perfect sense that the federal government should, at the very least, mention this safe and effective method of birth control in its guidelines for treating rape survivors.
Leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say that EC should be offered to rape victims. If emergency facilities routinely provided EC to sexual assault survivors, up to 22,000 of the 25,000 pregnancies that result from rape each year could be prevented.
The Bush administration refused to provide earlier drafts of the guidelines for rape victims, when solicited via a Freedom of Information Act request for documents that would shed light on the omission of EC from the final protocol. Instead, it sent materials that were used to help develop the protocol. All of the included documents discuss pregnancy prevention in detail. Most either provide instructions for prescribing emergency contraception or specifically recommend that emergency contraception be offered to rape victims. Clearly, the Department of Justice made a deliberate decision to ignore these recommendations.
If the federal government is going to turn its back on survivors of sexual assault, then it is up to the states to ensure that rape victims can prevent pregnancy following an assault by giving clear guidelines to caregivers. A woman who has just survived a sexual assault is already in crisis. She should not have to face the added burden of possibly becoming pregnant as a result of rape.
Last week, sexual assault groups, legislative officials, medical groups, women’s health advocates and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, launched a campaign to urge governors and other state officials to adopt state protocols for treating sexual assault survivors that ensure access to EC. To date, advocates have sent letters in seven states asking officials to “act where the federal government has failed to, making certain that [their state] protocol recommends victims of sexual assault be offered emergency contraception on-site in their initial exam.” The letters also urge officials to support efforts to increase funding in their state for medical staff who specialize in treating sexual assault patients.
Providing EC to rape survivors should be a no-brainer. Shamefully, the federal government, thus far, has failed to show any wisdom in this regard. States must step up to counter federal indifference and take the simple steps needed to protect women.
-
Who says George W. is responsible for protecting rape victims???:rofl :rofl
In September 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the first-ever national protocol for treating sexual assault victims. The otherwise comprehensive document didn't include information about emergency contraception (EC). Oversight? Not likely. :noid Press reports indicate that earlier drafts of the protocol included information about pregnancy prevention and, more specifically, EC.
Maybe, just maybe they decided to remove it and Let the States decide how to handle emergency contraception.
Dont we often discuss the need for less Federal involvment and more focus on state's rights?
-
Providing EC to rape survivors should be a no-brainer. Shamefully, the federal government, thus far, has failed to show any wisdom in this regard. States must step up to counter federal indifference and take the simple steps needed to protect women.
If true, I don't understand the reasoning - perhaps the government prefers stay out of reproductive issues. However, you shouldn't worry. I would be willing to bet that every single rape victim will be informed of her options at treatment.
Every. Single. Victim.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
If true, I don't understand the reasoning - perhaps the government prefers stay out of reproductive issues. However, you shouldn't worry. I would be willing to bet that every single rape victim will be informed of her options at treatment.
Every. Single. Victim.
Dont use any common sense here, it interferes with someones pathetic attempt to make Bush look bad.
-
So Lew are you going for bigest troll of the year or Most locked threads of the year?:D
-
So you guys don't think a "Protocol for treating rape victims" should include information about contraception? Really? Seems pretty stupid not to include it.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Twice Victimized
Jennifer Nevins
January 26, 2006
Jennifer Nevins is state strategies attorney
What would George W. do? When it comes to protecting rape victims from becoming pregnant as a result of assault, apparently nothing.B]
[/
I would hope so... thats not his job. Can you imagine being the head of the greatest nation on earth and having to worry about what to do about rape victims on top of everything that is going on in the world today. Maybe the States could take care of their rape victims, heaven knows I pay enough state and local taxes to fund a new hospital wing and a prison to house the scum bags that raped them.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you guys don't think a "Protocol for treating rape victims" should include information about contraception? Really? Seems pretty stupid not to include it.
You mean in the process of being viciously assaulted she should offer them a Trojan?
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
[/
I would hope so... thats not his job. Can you imagine being the head of the greatest nation on earth and having to worry about what to do about rape victims on top of everything that is going on in the world today. Maybe the States could take care of there rape victims, heaven knows I pay enough state and local taxes to fund a new hospital wing and a prison to house the scum bags that raped them.
W this is about leaving out information because of the pull of the religious right.
-
Originally posted by Silat
W this is about leaving out information because of the pull of the religious right.
And the only place a rape victim can get information is from the oval office in washington. Damn ....no wonder you Liberals are a little light on current events. Try the rape crisis center. It's in the phone book, front pages.
Oh! wait a minute...I get it....this is about evil Christians interfering some way in the right of a women to have sex with men she don't want to have a child with and then sticking a device through it's head before it's born. I bet I'm right ...heh.
-
See Rule #4, #2, #5
-
Originally posted by Silat
See Rule #4, #2QUOTE]
Wrong, I agree with you on, this Lew do not assume anything. I was was poking a little fun on the large number of locked threads for trolling.
I am not a Republican. If you bother to read anything I have posted for about a year I am digusted with both parties. Neither cares about you and I or this Country and if you still think the dems do well, you are wrong.
-
Silat, how many of your bush bashing threads have been locked lately?
Hmmmm....so he issues the FIRST EVER national protocal, and he's now a bad person because he is the elected leader of the executive made this based on his personal convictions and those that voted for him??????
I bet if he cured cancer you'd still find some way to demonize him for it.
-
Silat or MT, did either of you read this protocol?
It would appear that none of these people read it either,..
Jennifer Nevins,sexual assault groups, legislative officials, medical groups, women’s health advocates and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
The Justice Department is concerned about the collection of evidence not reproduction
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf
Read the title.
A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical
Forensic Examinations Adults/Adolescents
Nope, doesnt say anything about "treating sexual assault victims"
Acknowledgment maybe?
"Many individuals contributed their skills and expertise to the development of this protocol. Special
appreciation goes to Kristin Littel, who served as the primary writer and researcher for the protocol. We
would also like to thank the Office for Victims of Crime for initiating this project and for providing feedback
and guidance throughout the drafting process. We are grateful to all of the women and men who gave their
time and energy to attend the focus groups, participate in the conference calls, and review numerous drafts
of the protocol; their efforts greatly enhanced the final product."
Nothing about G.W. in there....
This first National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examinations provides detailed guidelines for criminal justice and health care practitioners in responding to
the immediate needs of sexual assault victims. We know that effective collection of evidence is of paramount
importance to successfully prosecuting sex offenders. Just as critical is performing sexual assault forensic
exams in a sensitive, dignified, and victim-centered manner. For individuals who experience this horrendous
crime, having a positive experience with the criminal justice and health care systems can contribute greatly
to their overall healing.
This document is intended only to improve the criminal justice system’s response to victims of
sexual assault and the sexual assault forensic examination process and does not create a right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, of any party.
Pregnancy risk evaluation and care: Female patients may fear becoming pregnant as a result of an
assault. Health care providers must address this issue according to facility and jurisdictional policy. (SEE
PAGE 111)
Discuss the probability of pregnancy with patients.
Administer a baseline pregnancy test for all patients with reproductive capability.
Discuss treatment options with patients, including reproductive health services.
-
you guys must still be reading?;)
that slight hissing sound I hear must be all the air running out of your argument...
-
And still nothing about EC.
shrug.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
And the only place a rape victim can get information is from the oval office in washington. Damn ....no wonder you Liberals are a little light on current events. Try the rape crisis center. It's in the phone book, front pages.
Oh! wait a minute...I get it....this is about evil Christians interfering some way in the right of a women to have sex with men she don't want to have a child with and then sticking a device through it's head before it's born. I bet I'm right ...heh.
W if you actually knew about this issue then we could discuss it. Many have quit their gov posts over it. The admin has gone out of its way to either block the drug and or make sure no one can hear about it.
This pill doesnt stick anything thru a babies head..
Hysterical republicans:(
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wrong, I agree with you on, this Lew do not assume anything. I was was poking a little fun on the large number of locked threads for trolling.
I am not a Republican. If you bother to read anything I have posted for about a year I am digusted with both parties. Neither cares about you and I or this Country and if you still think the dems do well, you are wrong.
GTO I know. I was joking back at you bro:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat, how many of your bush bashing threads have been locked lately?
Hmmmm....so he issues the FIRST EVER national protocal, and he's now a bad person because he is the elected leader of the executive made this based on his personal convictions and those that voted for him??????
I bet if he cured cancer you'd still find some way to demonize him for it.
He is supposed to care about all of us Guns. Not just the religious right. I am amazed that you cant see that...
Hysterical Reps make me sad...
-
How difficult is it understand? The Justice Department is concerned about forensics and the gathering of evidence to prosecute rape cases. The Justice Department doesn't give a rats prettythang about how the victim deals with the after effects of the rape. This information is to give care givers, medical personnel, and local law enforcement guideance on collecting evidence while remaining "sensitive to the victims needs"
It is not a protocol written to provide guideance on health care and repoductive choices. period.
Like weaselsan said, they can contact the Rape Crisis Center, and as Gunthr pointed out, every single rape victim will be informed of her options at treatment. Every. Single. Victim.
-
If women stayed at home and raised there babies they would not be out there to get raped! dont you see its the womens fault i tell you:rolleyes:
-
It would appear they have been arguing about this for awhile
http://www.house.gov/maloney/press/109th/20050310protocol.htm
-
Originally posted by Silat
GTO I know. I was joking back at you bro:)
Oh well that went right over my head then lol!:D
-
For two weeks, Justice officials were unavailable to talk about the new 141-page protocol, published in September. But in an e-mail, department spokesman Eric Holland reiterrated points made in the document.
"The goals of the protocol are to ensure that all victims, regardless of differences in background or location of service, receive the same high quality medical and forensic exam, while being treated with respect and compassion, and to improve prosecution of sexual assault cases through the appropriate collection of evidence,'' he wrote. "The protocol is not intended to supercede the many state, local, and tribal protocols that are currently in practice.''
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2004/12/31/build/nation/80-rape-victims.inc
-
""the federal govt does not do enough""
""the federal govt does too much""
make up your mind.
-
Originally posted by Silat
He is supposed to care about all of us Guns. Not just the religious right. I am amazed that you cant see that...
Hysterical Reps make me sad...
So he cares about us enough to be the very first executive to create a national protacol but his personal convictions don't allow him to introduce those kinds of drugs. Hmmm......yes I see what an evil man he truly is.
From the article:
, then it is up to the states to ensure that rape victims can prevent pregnancy following an assault by giving clear guidelines to caregivers.
How dare he give them states rights to decide locally what's best for the state on what can be a contraversial topic.
Tsk Tsk Tsk.
Or rather
Spin spin spin
What did Clinton's national protocal include? Oh yea that's right he didn't make one.....nore did Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or any of the other presidents before them. THOSE BASTARDS!
-
Originally posted by john9001
""the federal govt does not do enough""
""the federal govt does too much""
make up your mind.
"Bush is the devil"
"Bush is Hitler"
"Bush is the anti-Christ"
Make up your mind.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Silat or MT, did either of you read this protocol?
It would appear that none of these people read it either,..
Jennifer Nevins,sexual assault groups, legislative officials, medical groups, women’s health advocates and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union,
The Justice Department is concerned about the collection of evidence not reproduction
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ovw/206554.pdf
Read the title.
A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical
Forensic Examinations Adults/Adolescents
Nope, doesnt say anything about "treating sexual assault victims"
Acknowledgment maybe?
"Many individuals contributed their skills and expertise to the development of this protocol. Special
appreciation goes to Kristin Littel, who served as the primary writer and researcher for the protocol. We
would also like to thank the Office for Victims of Crime for initiating this project and for providing feedback
and guidance throughout the drafting process. We are grateful to all of the women and men who gave their
time and energy to attend the focus groups, participate in the conference calls, and review numerous drafts
of the protocol; their efforts greatly enhanced the final product."
Nothing about G.W. in there....
This first National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic
Examinations provides detailed guidelines for criminal justice and health care practitioners in responding to
the immediate needs of sexual assault victims. We know that effective collection of evidence is of paramount
importance to successfully prosecuting sex offenders. Just as critical is performing sexual assault forensic
exams in a sensitive, dignified, and victim-centered manner. For individuals who experience this horrendous
crime, having a positive experience with the criminal justice and health care systems can contribute greatly
to their overall healing.
This document is intended only to improve the criminal justice system’s response to victims of
sexual assault and the sexual assault forensic examination process and does not create a right or
benefit, substantive or procedural, of any party.
Pregnancy risk evaluation and care: Female patients may fear becoming pregnant as a result of an
assault. Health care providers must address this issue according to facility and jurisdictional policy. (SEE
PAGE 111)
Discuss the probability of pregnancy with patients.
Administer a baseline pregnancy test for all patients with reproductive capability.
Discuss treatment options with patients, including reproductive health services.
Y'all do see the two sentences before it says see page 111. right ?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So he cares about us enough to be the very first executive to create a national protacol but his personal convictions don't allow him to introduce those kinds of drugs. Hmmm......yes I see what an evil man he truly is.
From the article:
How dare he give them states rights to decide locally what's best for the state on what can be a contraversial topic.
Tsk Tsk Tsk.
Or rather
Spin spin spin
What did Clinton's national protocal include? Oh yea that's right he didn't make one.....nore did Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or any of the other presidents before them. THOSE BASTARDS!
First response of the Hysterical Rep is its Clintons fault...
And Guns that is correct he doesnt get to decide wht drugs are available to us.. No matter what his conviction.. He can ask for a law if he desires...
-
W this is about leaving out information because of the pull of the religious right.
I'm going to have to also say that Bush is leaving this decision to the States.
-
Originally posted by Silat
First response of the Hysterical Rep is its Clintons fault...
and the first response of a delusional demo is to blame Bush..:p
what do you guys wear special glasses when you read these posts??:cool:
Where does Gun Say its Clinton's fault,....?
What did Clinton's national protocal include? Oh yea that's right he didn't make one.....nore did Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, or any of the other presidents before them. THOSE BASTARDS!
Of course Clinton probably has the necessary experience to write a Protocol for Victims ;)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Of course Clinton probably has the necessary experience to write a Protocol for Victims ;)
NICE!
I'm afraid Silat suffers from BDS (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html) just like many others in this great nation. It's ok, he's still a good person deep down inside.
Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
-
I am SO :confused: :confused: .
What does this MEAN?
Pregnancy risk evaluation and care: Female patients may fear becoming pregnant as a result of an assault. Health care providers must address this issue according to facility and jurisdictional policy. (SEE
PAGE 111)
Does this mean health care providers must address this issue according to facility and jurisdictional policy.
Or does it mean Health care providers must address this issue according to facility and jurisdictional policy.
:confused:
-
Y'all have an unhealthy uterus fixation
-
Ok... does anyone know if there is even a morning after pill that has passed the food and drug admins testing and is certified safe for use in the U.S.?
That is one thing... another is.. Why should the government tell anyone about any product? If the person used it and was harmed... would not the government be liable? seems irresponsible to me.
Are there not doctors involved? Are we saying that there is a procedure that we want to force doctors to use?
And... why is the government not telling her how to get a concealled carry permit for a handgun?
The "morning after" pill is just one way of treating a rape victim but does nothing at all about preventing rape... nothing... Concealled carry permits are prevention of not only unwanted pregnancies but of a violent assault and of possible disease.
Does the morning after pill negate the violent assault or do anything for the possible STD's ?
Only a whinie liberal with an agenda would want to force doctors to not make their own decisions or not issue concealed carry permits.
one of the sillyest whines I have heard from you to date silat... and that is saying a lot.
lazs
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Silat
Very silly response laz. Try reading about wht this admin has done to sink the use of this drug in the us before you make these kind of hysterical republican comments..
Silat, your the delusional demo conspiracy theorist, ;) please post your evidence of the conspiracy.
-
this is what I can find on EC pills
basically from what I can see, Plan B was available by prescription only, and the fight with the FDA is about making Plan B available as a OTC drug, (Like aspirin)
I sure dont see any conspiracy here, just the usual burocratic red tap that has always been the FDA
http://ec.princeton.edu/info/ecp.html
There are two types of emergency contraceptive pills ("morning after pills"). One type uses hormones that are the same type and dose as hormones used in some kinds of ordinary birth control pills. These hormones are called estrogen and progestin (combined ECPs). In many countries (but not the United States), these pills are especially packaged and labeled for emergency use. But several other brands packaged for ongoing contraception can be used as well. About 50% of women who use this type get nauseated and 20% vomit. Use of this pill cuts the chance of pregnancy by 75%. This statement does not mean that 25% of women using ECPs will become pregnant. Rather, if 100 women had unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycle, about 8 would become pregnant; following treatment with ECPs, only 2 would become pregnant: a 75% reduction.
The other type of emergency contraceptive pill contains only the hormone called progestin (progestin-only ECPs). In many countries this type is specially packaged and labeled for use for emergency contraception; the brand name in the United States is Plan B. It is more effective than the first type, and the risk of nausea and vomiting is also lower. If the same 100 women used Plan B, only 1 would get pregnant: an 89% reduction.
In many countries, but not the United States, emergency contraceptive pills ("morning after pills") are available from a pharmacy without a prescription.
{I'm not female so I cant say for sure, but I think all birth control pills require a prescription (no conspiracy here)}
For the United States, we maintain a directory of providers who have informed our office that they are willing to provide information about and prescribe emergency contraceptives. (available, just ask for a prescription)
from Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/11/planb_timeline.html
I read the timeline here and there is alot stuff but I think you have to be a delusional demo to see a conspiracy :)
-
silat... I quoted no one... I simply know that the pill is not deemed safe yet by the FDA. If you want to abolish the FDA I am with ya but....
I see the pill as being either.... simply an overdose of normal birth control pills in which case anyone could do it themselves or.... some other type that even in places it is legal is labeled "emergency"..
Why "emergency"? if it is so safe... why not just take em whenever you need em (assuming you are not with a normal partner and have sex infrequently) ?
So.... are they safe or not? are they approved or not? Does the FDA operate by guidelines or does the evil booooosh tell them what to do?
also... if abortions are so safe and good for people.... why take a chance on some uncertified drug when you may not even need it? Why not wait to see if you are pregnant and then get a simple abortion?
I am not against a morning after pill. Make sure it is safe and then if it is completely safe.... make it over the counter... if not completely safe for every woman... make it a perscription product...
Do not make it a law that doctors have to push it on people or even offer the choice unless asked.
lazs
-
Just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth by Rule #4'ing and Rule #5'ing myself. :confused: Figured if I don't have victim mentality, I might as well join them, consider me twice victimized.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... I quoted no one... I simply know that the pill is not deemed safe yet by the FDA. If you want to abolish the FDA I am with ya but....
I see the pill as being either.... simply an overdose of normal birth control pills in which case anyone could do it themselves or.... some other type that even in places it is legal is labeled "emergency"..
Why "emergency"? if it is so safe... why not just take em whenever you need em (assuming you are not with a normal partner and have sex infrequently) ?
So.... are they safe or not? are they approved or not? Does the FDA operate by guidelines or does the evil booooosh tell them what to do?
also... if abortions are so safe and good for people.... why take a chance on some uncertified drug when you may not even need it? Why not wait to see if you are pregnant and then get a simple abortion?
I am not against a morning after pill. Make sure it is safe and then if it is completely safe.... make it over the counter... if not completely safe for every woman... make it a perscription product...
Do not make it a law that doctors have to push it on people or even offer the choice unless asked.
lazs
Most women dont know about it nor about the proper dosage. You should contact your dr.
Rape victims are not thinking clearly after being traumatized.
They need all their options told to them without prejudice..
Yes a large dose of estrogen etc will do it but you need to talk to a doctor and not do self medicating. There can be side affects.
Its not nor never will be a law. But the option should be there and explained.
This admin is trying to hide or prevent its availability and keep it from being given to women if they want it.
A pill that you can take to stop ovulation and fertilization is safer than a surgical type procedure. This pill does not terminate pregnancy. Nor does it stop a egg that is fertilized from being implanted. It only stops ovulation and fertilization.
So it isnt an abortion.
Therefore any religious objections do not apply because nothing is being killed. This would be akin to saying abstinence is killing potential life.
But they do. Go figure.
Read the following if you dont believe this admin/religious right is trying to take a womens right to privacy and choice away..........
The Assault on Birth Control and Family Planning Programs, October 2003 - Executive Summary
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/report-031030-birth-control.xml
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat, how many of your bush bashing threads have been locked lately?
Hmmmm....so he issues the FIRST EVER national protocal, and he's now a bad person because he is the elected leader of the executive made this based on his personal convictions and those that voted for him??????
I bet if he cured cancer you'd still find some way to demonize him for it.
Gun you cant have it both ways.
This admin promotes anti condom use in the third world. THat is promoting only 1 choice. They should be promoting all the choices to stop unwanted pregnancy.
If you and they are to be consistent then you and they shouldnt be promoting anything:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Gun you cant have it both ways.
This admin promotes anti condom use in the third world. THat is promoting only 1 choice. They should be promoting all the choices to stop unwanted pregnancy.
If you and they are to be consistent then you and they shouldnt be promoting anything:)
Silat my freind. Promoting abstinence is not allways a bad thing. Some people are hell bent on their ideology and weather you respect that or not it's what they do. To say they don't care about rape victoms (wich is a seperat issue from condom use) is flat out inflamatory when they are the first ones to creat policy about said victoms and leave it up to the states to decide on contraversial topics.
Again BDS. Get yourself checked out. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Silat my freind. Promoting abstinence is not allways a bad thing. Some people are hell bent on their ideology and weather you respect that or not it's what they do. To say they don't care about rape victoms (wich is a seperat issue from condom use) is flat out inflamatory when they are the first ones to creat policy about said victoms and leave it up to the states to decide on contraversial topics.
Again BDS. Get yourself checked out. ;)
BDS>>?? WHat is that?
Abstinence is a great theory. Aint happening Guns. Never has. But if this admin is going to promote then they must show all options. Not just those advocated by the religious right...............
-
Originally posted by Silat
BDS>>?? WHat is that?
Abstinence is a great theory. Aint happening Guns. Never has. But if this admin is going to promote then they must show all options. Not just those advocated by the religious right...............
BDS (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html)
Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
You are skewing the issue here. It's not about abstinence, it's about prescription medication wich to some could be considered contraversial. Is Bush pandering to his base? Yes he is, but he's not outlawing it, he's leaving it up to the local states to decide. That's HARDLY not caring about rape victoms.
If Hillary can call congress a plantation in front of a black audience then Bush can write rules delegating issues important to his base to the state.
-
Abstinence is a great theory. Aint happening Guns. Never has. But if this admin is going to promote then they must show all options. Not just those advocated by the religious right...............
It isn't? The catholic church is in one country in africa (I forget which right now). But they promote abstinence til marriage and their country is the only one out there with decreasing Aid's rates.
-
silat.... the basic difference is that you believe that government should be in every facet of our lives and I believe that it should be in allmost none.
I have nothing against a morning after pill if it is safe. I have nothing against any doctor explaining all the options to anyone including a rape victim but I do have a problem with a federal program that forces doctors to treat patients in any way other than a professional one. I can't believe that there is any woman... "traumatized" or not, that doesn't realize that a rape might result in a pregnancy.
You claim that the pill is not well known.. Why is that? Please don't tell me that planned parenthood doesn't have the resources to get the word out.
Why is it so unknown here?
Most police officers that are professionals will tell victims of assault.... esspecialy repeat victims.. that they should get a firearm and learn to use it and that firearms prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year.
somehow I feel that... That kind of prevention would not meet with your approval tho.. I can't see you condeming finestein or boxer for disarming defenseless women tho.... Why don't finestein and boxer try to help these women? don't you want a compassionate government? One that is "concerned" about us?
and...abstinence will not work for everyone that is true but more abstinence will mean less problems. It is a viable alternative for some.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat.... the basic difference is that you believe that government should be in every facet of our lives and I believe that it should be in allmost none.
I have nothing against a morning after pill if it is safe. I have nothing against any doctor explaining all the options to anyone including a rape victim but I do have a problem with a federal program that forces doctors to treat patients in any way other than a professional one. I can't believe that there is any woman... "traumatized" or not, that doesn't realize that a rape might result in a pregnancy.
You claim that the pill is not well known.. Why is that? Please don't tell me that planned parenthood doesn't have the resources to get the word out.
Why is it so unknown here?
Most police officers that are professionals will tell victims of assault.... esspecialy repeat victims.. that they should get a firearm and learn to use it and that firearms prevent from 1.5-3 million crimes a year.
somehow I feel that... That kind of prevention would not meet with your approval tho.. I can't see you condeming finestein or boxer for disarming defenseless women tho.... Why don't finestein and boxer try to help these women? don't you want a compassionate government? One that is "concerned" about us?
and...abstinence will not work for everyone that is true but more abstinence will mean less problems. It is a viable alternative for some.
lazs
Actually this is about this admin manipulating information and people (possibly illegally certainly immorally) to achieve their neo con aims.
I am pro gun Laz. So that doesnt hold water... And has nothing to do with this issue.
The admin has cut funds for any groups that want to mention alternatives. This is wrong. That is one of the points. They give money to religious groups who follow the neocon agenda.
-
promoting abstinence which has been proven not to work over condom use. Fed money going to religious groups that support a religious belief not a realistic and scientific answer.
And yes this is using Fed funds to promote a narrow religious agenda.
Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jan 29, 6:31 PM ET
President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter of its grants to religious groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use.
Award recipients include a Christian relief organization famous for its televised appeals to feed hungry children, a well-known Catholic charity and a group run by the son of evangelist Billy Graham, according to the State Department.
The outreach to nontraditional AIDS players comes in the midst of a debate over how best to prevent the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The debate has activated groups on both ends of the political spectrum and created a vast competition for money.
Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes. The Bush administration provided more than 560 million condoms abroad last year, compared with some 350 million in 2001.
Secular organizations in Africa are raising concerns that new money to groups without AIDS experience may dilute the impact of Bush's historic three-year-old program.
"We clearly recognize that it is very important to work with faith-based organizations," said Dan Mullins, deputy regional director for southern and western Africa for CARE, one of the best-known humanitarian organizations.
"But at the same time we don't want to fall into the trap of assuming faith-based groups are good at everything," Mullins said.
The administration is beginning a broad effort to attract newcomers and distribute money for AIDS prevention and care beyond the large nonprofit groups that traditionally have led the fight.
The New Partners Initiative reserves $200 million through the 2008 budget year for community and church groups with little or no background in government grants. Some may have health operations in Africa but no experience in HIV work. Others may be homegrown groups in Africa that have not previously sought U.S. support.
"The notion that because people have always received aid money that they'll get money needs to end," Deputy U.S. global AIDS coordinator Mark Dybul said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The only way to have sustainable programs is to have programs that are wholly owned in terms of management personnel at the local level."
Large nonprofit groups involved in health and development projects typically enlist local religious groups because of their deep community ties.
The goal now is to penetrate hard-to-reach corners of the target countries — 13 in Africa, and Haiti and Vietnam — and bring aboard community and faith groups that previously lacked expertise to win grants, Dybul said.
Religious organizations last year accounted for more than 23 percent of all groups that got HIV/AIDS grants, according to the State Department. Some 80 percent of all secular and religious grant recipients were based in the countries where the aid is targeted.
Among those winning grants were:
_Samaritan's Purse, which is run by Graham's son, Franklin. It says its mission is "meeting critical needs of victims of war, poverty, famine, disease and natural disaster while sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ."
-
_World Vision. The 56-year-old Christian organization is known for its TV appeals — some with celebrities such as game show host Alex Trebek — that asked people to support a Third World child.
_Catholic Relief Services. It was awarded $6.2 million to teach abstinence and fidelity in three countries; $335 million in a consortium providing anti-retroviral treatment; and $9 million to help orphans and children affected by HIV/AIDs. The group offers "complete and correct information about condoms" but will not promote, purchase or distribute them, said Carl Stecker, senior program director for HIV/AIDS.
_HOPE. The global relief organization founded by the International Churches of Christ recently brought comedian Chris Rock to South Africa for an AIDS prevention event. AIDS grants support HOPE in several countries.
_World Relief, founded by the National Association of Evangelicals. It won $9.7 million for abstinence work in four countries.
Most of the money in Bush's initiative goes to treatment programs, earning the administration praise for delivering lifesaving drugs and care to millions of HIV-infected patients.
For prevention, Bush embraces the "ABC" strategy: abstinence before marriage, being faithful to one partner, and condoms targeted for high-risk activity. The Republican-led Congress mandated that one-third of prevention money be reserved for abstinence and fidelity.
Condom promotion to anyone must include abstinence and fidelity messages, U.S. guidelines say, but those preaching abstinence do not have to provide condom education.
The abstinence emphasis, say some longtime AIDS volunteers, has led to a confusing message and added to the stigma of condom use in parts of Africa. Village volunteers in Swaziland maintain a supply of free condoms but say they have few takers.
"This drive for abstinence is putting a lot of pressure on girls to get married earlier," said Dr. Abeja Apunyo, the Uganda representative for Pathfinder International, a reproductive health nonprofit group based in Massachusetts.
"For years now we have been trying to tell our daughters that they should finish their education and train in a profession before they get married. Otherwise they have few options if they find themselves separated from their husbands for some reason," Apunyo said.
An AIDS-program pastor in Uganda explained his abstinence teaching to unmarried young people.
"Why give an alternative and have them take a risk?" asked the Rev. Sam Lawrence Ruteikara of the Anglican Church of Uganda, a U.S. grant recipient. "This person doesn't have a sexual partner, so why should I report too much, saying that in case you get a sexual partner, please use a condom. I am saying, please don't get a sexual partner — don't get involved because it is risky."
Secular activists say it is not realistic to expect all teenagers to abstain from sex and that teenagers also should be taught how to protect themselves.
U.S.-backed programs have spread abstinence and faithfulness education to more than 13 million people in Uganda, according to the State Department. Officials promote the nation as an "ABC" model, with its HIV infection rate down by more than half in a decade.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said that on a tour of Uganda in January he saw pro-abstinence rallies and skits praising Bush, and U.S.-supported groups conducting house-to-house testing, care and counseling.
"The good news about the faith-based groups is not only the passion they bring to the work but it is the moral authority and the extended numbers of volunteers they can mobilize to get the word out," Smith said.
But Smith believes the administration is wrongly supporting some nonprofit groups. He and several other congressional conservatives wrote to Bush and the U.S. Agency for International Development, contending that several large grant recipients were pro-prostitution, pro-abortion or not committed enough to Bush's abstinence priorities.
The letters followed a briefing last year by Focus on the Family, run by Christian commentator and Bush ally James Dobson. The group's sexual health analyst, Linda Klepacki, said even some religious groups emphasize condoms over abstinence.
"We have to be careful that the president's original intent is being followed where A and B are the emphasized areas of the ABC methodology," she said.
Six congressional Democrats, in a letter last week to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, accused the conservatives of a distortion campaign that undermines a balanced approach to fighting AIDS.
"Their attack is based on a narrow, ideological viewpoint that condemns condoms and frames any attempt to reach out to high-risk populations as an endorsement of behaviors that these critics oppose," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
USAID has declined to renew funding for two major AIDS-fighting consortiums, CORE and IMPACT, headed by organizations the conservatives targeted. Those two groups fund hundreds of community and religious-based organizations.
CORE, whose lead partner is CARE, is losing its central source of money, meaning its work survives only if it can win grants from individual USAID missions in target countries.
Family Health International, the lead organization of IMPACT, brought hundreds of local and religious groups into its $441 million project, but was told the administration wants new partners, said Sheila Mitchell, senior vice president of FHI's Institute for HIV/AIDS.
Dybul said the changes are in keeping with the shift to local groups. Any suggestion of political motivation is "inaccurate and offensive to people doing this work," he said. Millions of grant dollars still go to the groups that were criticized.
One grant was delayed when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., last year complained about renewing $14 million to Population Services International, a leading nonprofit condom distributor.
The group's bingo-style games that teach Guatemalan prostitutes about safe sex misused funds "to exploit victims of the sex trade," Coburn said. Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho, then wrote to praise PSI's work as "provably effective and efficient."
USAID divided the grant; condom distribution was separated into the smaller part so that religious groups could apply for the other part. PSI eventually won the larger grant. The second is outstanding.
Although administration critics frequently cite PSI as a group that fell from favor under the new initiative, "we have not been eviscerated," said Stewart Parkinson, a senior program analyst.
The group lost U.S. grants in Uganda and Tanzania but retained others. And Parkinson said he had no indication of political motivation.
___
-
Ok.... now I get it... this is all about funding. You say that because one group supports the morning after pill that cutting funding for them is in effect.....
victimizing women? You don't show that the pill is safe. You don't show why it is so little known... you don't show that your group is the only one...even if you use doctors... who is "responsible" enough to... (promote?) the morning after pill for rape victims.
I say let the doctors decide and let the women do their own research... we don't need to fund a group based on the fact that they promote one type of medication... a controversial one at that.
as for abstinence... a small amount of abstinance makes a huge difference... condoms do not work. the proof is there. saying that they do is probly increasing the problem... saying that abstinence is probly the only 100% effective method is telling the truth and helping the problem...
so... those who say they can give you "safe" sex are.... lying and promting more dangerous behavior... And..those who say that abstinence or staying with one partner are the only guarnteed safe way and are promoting safer and better lives for everyone. Right?
I believe in staying with one partner at a time that you trust. I trust that a lot more than condoms say. If everyone did it you would see a huge drop in unwanted pregnancies, disease and probly crime.
lazs