PDA

View Full Version : Bush says no contraception for you


Faithless
10-12-2004, 11:47 AM
The President vs. the Pill (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0441/lerner.php)
by Sharon Lerner
October 12th, 2004 10:45 AM

Most concerned voters know where George Bush stands on abortion—he backs the Republican call for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortions even in cases of rape and incest. But how many people know that his interest in controlling what a woman does with her body extends to contraception? That's right, the born-again wannabe-president-again has repeatedly used his power to curb access to birth control, which some 95 percent of American women use at some point in their lives.

Now, family planning advocates are working to let voters in on the president's little-known record. Planned Parenthood is running TV ads in swing states drawing the difference between John Kerry and Bush on abortion and birth control. And NARAL Pro-Choice America has its interim president, Elizabeth Cavendish, traveling the country explaining the ways Bush has attacked contraception. "When people hear about it, they really feel convinced that Bush is a menace to our rights," says Cavendish.

A prime example is the "faith-based" health plan for federal employees unveiled late last month, which specifically excludes coverage of contraception. Tailored to fit the tenets of the Catholic Church, the new plan will deny assistance with artificial insemination, sterilization, and abortion. Though it reduces the number of procedures covered by insurance, Kay Coles James, director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The New York Times the plan gave federal employees "more opportunities to make choices."

It's worth noting that James, now part of the Bush administration, is a former spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee.

Birth control was also front and center in Bush's recent "family priorities" campaign ad, which begins talking about "teenage abortions" and then slips into a discussion of emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, which actually prevents pregnancy if taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. "Kerry even voted to allow schools to hand out the morning-after pill without parents' knowledge," an ominous voice tells viewers.

Never mind the ad's inaccuracy (Kerry didn't actually vote for legislation that authorizes schools to give students the morning-after pill; he voted to allow parents more control over how schools spend federal dollars, which, in some cases, could be spent on the pill). Its message is clear: Bush is not just running against abortion, he's moving the bar to include pregnancy prevention.

No one who paid attention to the May scuffle over emergency contraception should be surprised. After all, Bush stacked the Food and Drug Administration's scientific panels with appointees who succeeded in blocking the drug from becoming available over the counter. His appointees to the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee weren't just religious conservatives, they were among a fringe minority of religious conservatives who object to certain kinds of contraception, insisting they're forms of abortion.

For instance, Joseph B. Stanford, a Utah physician Bush appointed to the FDA committee, refuses to prescribe the birth control pill, saying it's "incompatible with Christian values." As Stanford—and the "Human Life Amendment" plank of the Republican Party platform—would have it, pregnancy, and life, begin when a sperm and egg meet. Thus, the IUD, the birth control pill, the patch, the vaginal ring, and other hormonal contraceptive methods become objectionable because they either can or are designed to work after fertilization.

Bush started his term by removing a budget provision that required some insurance companies serving federal employees to cover contraception. Then federal National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed fact sheets about sex education and the effectiveness of condoms from their websites. Bush went on to cut funds for family planning throughout his time in office while pouring money into "abstinence-only" education, which forbids frank discussion of birth control. For the past three years, Bush has withheld $34 million for international family planning from the United Nations Population Fund. Meanwhile, he is promising to increase abstinence funding, already at record levels, and to insist that nearly one-third of domestic funding for HIV/AIDS be spent on abstinence.

The president has installed several far-right conservatives to wage the war against contraception. He appointed Tom Coburn, a former Republican congressman who has opposed condom use, as co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. Dr. W. David Hager, another Bush appointee to the FDA reproductive health panel, is a former spokesperson for the Christian Medical Association and co-author of a book that recommends scripture reading and prayers for various ailments.

Sadly, the "prayer method" doesn't work very well when it comes to preventing pregnancies—an idea not lost on voters. When the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America conducted focus groups in swing states, female voters between 18 and 39 said that the single most convincing election message about choice is that the next president will make a range of decisions that affect not only abortion, but also birth control. Yet most in the focus groups were unaware of Bush's record on contraception.

That's where the new political ads come in. "If they understand that their most intimate liberties are at stake," says Cavendish, "they'll vote for John Kerry."

Emperor_Mike
10-12-2004, 12:16 PM
Not likely. The pharmaceutical industry will never allow such a thing to happen. The makers of the current "Pill" is Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Corp. which makes large contributions to the GOP. This is either hot air designed to win over more Conservative Christian voters or a really badly played political manoeuvre.

Faithless
10-13-2004, 07:15 AM
^ Well, from what I understand the pharmaceutical industry makes a hell of a lot more gains with Bush in office, despite the nuisance of some restrictions on the use of certain birth control medicines.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=666_0_1_0_C
Prescription for Profits

Pharmaceutical companies and their executives have spent half a billion dollars since 1999 on lobbying, campaign contributions and industry front groups in an all-out effort to prevent a Medicare prescription drug benefit that would give government the power to negotiate lower prices. Decrying “price controls” and clamoring for a “market-based” solution, the nation’s drug-makers—already the most profitable industry in the country—have made it clear they won’t tolerate any threat to their bottom line.

The Medicare bill passed by Congress and signed by Bush last fall is tailor-made to their interests. Projected to cost taxpayers at least $530 billion over 10 years, the bill greatly expands the customer base for the pharmaceutical giants but ensures that the prescription drug benefit will be administered by private companies. In fact, the bill expressly prohibits the government from negotiating lower prices.

The drug industry also has aggressively opposed the “re-importation” of less expensively priced drugs from Canada. Pfizer, whose CEO Hank McKinnell is a Ranger, has threatened to blacklist any Canadian pharmacy that sells drugs to Americans. The Bush administration has marched in lockstep with the drug-makers, insisting drugs from Canada pose a risk to public safety. Yet when pressed by Congress to substantiate these claims, one top FDA official admitted, “We have very little evidence.”

The real danger, it seems, is to drug company profit margins.
That being case, there must be some acceptable level of trade-off.

And that trade-off may come from keeping overall healthcare costs up.

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/healthcare_costs/

...
American Seniors Will Pay More for Prescription Drugs Under President's New Plan. Under the Medicare legislation, the poorest 6 million American seniors lost their dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, exposing them to substantially higher drug costs. And the plan does nothing to control the rising cost of drugs. According to Consumers Union, "most beneficiaries will face higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs after full implementation." (CPBB Fact Sheet, www.cbpp.org, 12/11/03; Consumers Union, Medicare Prescription Drugs, 11/17/03, www.consumersunion.org )

Prescription Drug Industry Pushing Health Care Inflation
Drug Costs are the Major Driving Force Behind Increased Health Care Costs. The cost of the 10 most popular prescription drugs has gone up and average 8.7 % over the last year alone. Prescription drugs now account for 23 percent of American's out-of-pocket costs. [AdvancePCS, 8/25/03, www.advancepcsrx.com; New York Times, 1/9/04]
...

Yeahman
10-13-2004, 08:53 AM
Most concerned voters know where George Bush stands on abortion—he backs the Republican call for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortions even in cases of rape and incest.
Actually most concerned voters wouldn't know that because it's a lie. Bush does not support abortion in cases of rape and incest. This first sentence puts the truthfulness of the whole article into question.

Thus, the IUD, the birth control pill, the patch, the vaginal ring, and other hormonal contraceptive methods become objectionable because they either can or are designed to work after fertilization.
Thus making it murder.

Faithless
10-13-2004, 09:35 AM
Even Bush flip-flops?

On abortion -- Bush's Abortion Flip-Flop? (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000703&s=corn)
Which current candidate for President reversed the abortion stand he espoused as a Congressional candidate in the seventies and adopted a position more acceptable to the mainstream of his party? If you said Al Gore, you may be only half right. George W. Bush appears to have done the same.

In 1978, Bush, a 31-year-old oilman, was seeking the Republican nomination in Texas' 19th Congressional District, which included Midland, Odessa and Lubbock. He was locked in a fierce battle with Jim Reese, a veteran campaigner and Reagan Republican. Days before the June 3 primary runoff, Bush was interviewed by a reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Reese had attacked Bush for being cozy with liberal Rockefeller Republicans. In response, Bush listed conservative positions he held. "I'm not for the extension of the time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment," he told the paper. "I feel the ERA is unnecessary. I'm not for the federal funding of abortions. I've done nothing to promote homosexuality in our society." But he went on to explain his view on abortion. The Avalanche-Journal reported: "Bush said he opposes the pro-life amendment favored by Reese and favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question. 'That does not mean I'm for abortion,' he said."

So, Bush opposed the main goal of the antiabortion movement, a constitutional amendment banning abortion, which the GOP had endorsed. Moreover, he echoed the language of abortion-rights supporters: Abortion is a matter best left to a woman and her doctor. Bush's reported remarks were in step with the family position. His father, who as a Congressman was such a proponent of family planning he was nicknamed Rubbers, supported abortion rights until he became Reagan's running mate in 1980.

The Bush presidential campaign insists that Sylvia Teague, the Avalanche-Journal reporter, misreported Bush's comments. "We consider this [article] a misinterpretation," says Dan Bartlett, a spokesman for George W. Bush. "He is pro-life. He was always opposed to abortion." But Mel Tittle, the current managing editor of the Avalanche-Journal, who was with the paper in the seventies, says of Teague, "To the best of our knowledge, she was a very reliable reporter. I'll let the writing stand for itself." Teague, now an award-winning investigative journalist at KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, maintains, "I have confidence that whatever I wrote then was accurate. I don't recall the Bush [Congressional] campaign coming to me and saying he was misquoted."

Bush beat Reese in the runoff, but he lost the general election. His next race was not until 1994, when he challenged Governor Ann Richards. In that campaign he avoided discussing abortion. "It's not an issue in the 1994 governor's race," he said. His campaign literature noted, "The United States has settled the abortion issue." But Bush did say he opposed abortion except in instances of rape and incest and when a mother's life is in danger--a fundamental change from the remarks that appeared in the Lubbock newspaper. Weeks before the 1994 election, he vowed, "I will do everything in my power to restrict abortions."

Bush won the election, and as Governor, he signed several pieces of antiabortion legislation. As a presidential contender, he has backed a constitutional amendment banning abortion and favored preserving the GOP platform plank that calls for the amendment. He has pronounced himself "pro-life" but has refused to pledge that he will appoint antiabortion judges and select an antiabortion running mate. That has raised suspicions among hard-core anti-choice activists. Yet Jerry Falwell and Henry Hyde have vouched for Bush's views. The National Right to Life Committee endorsed him in February.

After his 1978 defeat, did Bush change his position on abortion to be more electable as a Republican? Earlier in the current campaign, Al Gore's abortion transition was an issue. Although Gore maintained that he had "always" supported abortion rights, as a Congressman in the seventies and early eighties, he cast antiabortion votes and declared that "abortion is wrong" and "innocent human life must be protected." Gore eventually acknowledged, "Yes, my position has changed." The Republicans hammered Gore for being a flip-flopper, and Mindy Tucker, a Bush spokeswoman, said that Bush may use Gore's shift on abortion to show that he'll do anything to get elected. "I think people want to see consistency with their leaders," she explained. With his own consistency in question, Bush might want to refrain from blasting Gore for playing politics with abortion.

hooligan
10-13-2004, 11:33 AM
Actually most concerned voters wouldn't know that because it's a lie. Bush does not support abortion in cases of rape and incest. This first sentence puts the truthfulness of the whole article into question.

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop. you forgot poland.

Thus making it murder.

debatable and that's besides the point of this thread.

Faithless
10-13-2004, 11:53 AM
Actually most concerned voters wouldn't know that because it's a lie. Bush does not support abortion in cases of rape and incest. This first sentence puts the truthfulness of the whole article into question.
I don't know if it puts the truthfulness of the whole article into question, but Sharon Lerner's comment does fly in the face of what we hear from Bush in the news.

I sent an email to Ms. Lerner, and she did respond with this --
Thanks for your note. You're right, Bush has said he supports those exceptions. He's also said he supports the Republican party position on a constitutional amendment that does not contain those exceptions. And, when pressed, he's refused to explain the inconsistency.
-SL

Gather from what Ms. Lerner says, it is possible for Bush to have this duality -- saying one thing, personally, then supporting another.

Ask her yourself. (No one tell her I sent you all, though. :rolleyes: ) LernerS@newschool.edu

Faithless
03-07-2005, 01:30 AM
So, why does congress, under Bush's watch, fund Planned Parenthood?

Abortion issue flares in health hearing (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/03/01/local/doc422508de6b58c669674882.txt)

BY KEVIN O'HANLON / Lincoln Journal Star

The debate over abortion flared Tuesday during a hearing on the proposed budget for the state Health and Human Services System.

HHS officials appeared before the Legislature's Appropriations Committee to discuss their proposed $1.1 billion budget when Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln questioned why the state gives grant money to organizations that support abortion rights, such as Planned Parenthood. More Session 2005 stories

Foley opposes awarding grant money to Planned Parenthood to provide free pap smears and other testing to low-income women. He said there are plenty of other clinics in most cities that can perform the services.

"It is highly offensive to many Nebraskans that our general fund tax dollars are distributed to Planned Parenthood — the nation's largest provider of abortion services," Foley said. "It further offends many Nebraskans that low-income women in need of a pap smear or chlamydia test are asked to go to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in order to be served.

"Virtually any gynecologist in the state could readily perform these services, yet HHS policies do not allow them to qualify for the funds," Foley said.

He noted that Planned Parenthood also receives federal Title X money, which requires that the organization counsel women about the option of having an abortion.

Under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act authorizing the largest federal-funded family planning program, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services makes grants to states, localities, clinics and hospitals for family planning services.

Aimed primarily at low-income women, the money is granted only if the receiver provides certain services — including informing women about abortion and referring them to a provider upon request.

"So on the one hand, Planned Parenthood is receiving federal Title X money that requires them to conduct abortion counseling and abortion referrals as a condition for receiving the federal dollars," Foley said. "And along comes the state of Nebraska that provided Planned Parenthood with state tobacco settlement dollars for reproductive health services on the condition that none of the state dollars could be used for abortion counseling or abortion referrals."

Sen. Nancy Thompson of Papillion also questioned an HHS request for $600,000 to pay for a one-year program coordinated by Real Alternatives, an organization "committed to assisting women in crisis pregnancies by providing free and compassionate, practical and life-affirming alternatives to abortion."

Dr. Richard Raymond, the state's chief medical officer, said the idea for the program was embraced by former Gov. Mike Johanns more than a year ago, but was not acted on because of budget constraints.

The committee took no action on the HHS budget.

Controversy over the state funding for Planned Parenthood is not new. In 2003, Nebraska's chapter of Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to reinstate a state grant the agency planned to use to fund a teen-outreach program.

The lawsuit came after Attorney General Jon Bruning issued an opinion on the $100,000 grant violated a state law that forbids the use of state money on abortion counseling and referrals or school-based health clinics and research using cell tissue from aborted fetuses.

The agency claims the grant was legal because the teen program did not include information about abortion.

The program would have created alternative clinics where "Teen Nights" would be held. At the events, youths would receive information about birth control, pregnancy tests, pap smears, and tests for detecting sexually transmitted diseases.

Bruning said that HHS erred in awarding the grant to the agency, because Planned Parenthood receives federal grants that require it to offer abortion information on request.

The opinion effectively voided the grant, which would have funded the program in Lincoln and another in Hastings for three years.

The agency alleged that Bruning's interpretation would require Planned Parenthood to forgo its First Amendment right to free speech in order to receive the grant.