Undermining His Own “Pro-Life” Efforts
Undermining His Own “Pro-Life” Efforts
At yesterday’s White House Press Briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan congratulated the President’s work to reduce the number of abortions:
[On] the issue of abortion, the President has made it very clear that there are ways — common sense, practical ways that we can work together to reduce the number of abortions in America. And he has worked to do that, if you look at what we have done, by placing a ban on partial birth abortion, by supporting efforts to increase adoption. The President is strongly committed to finding ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions in America.
It’s a rather limited effort if the administration is reducing the number of abortions only by working to reduce the number of pregnancies that end in abortion. It’s like hacking away at the branches instead of going after the roots. The fact is that “the United States has among the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion.” An obvious way to reduce the number of pregnancies that end in abortion is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in the first place. Unfortunately, one of the President’s favorite initiatives — abstinence only education — may actually be counterproductive to this effort.
In updating its teen pregnancy policy, a leading group of experts — the American Academy of Pediatrics — stated that “Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy.” Instead, “teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases.”
By continuing to pursue abstinence only education, President Bush is prioritizing conservatism over compassion and undermining his own efforts to reduce the number of abortions in our nation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This administration has demonstrated commitment to not allowing science and objective fact get in the way of policy.
In Bush’s terms, “the question is rarely asked, is our children abstaining?”
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:01 pmAmong the ‘Anti Choice’ people are a large number of ‘Anti Birth-Control’ people that contain a number of ‘Anti Sex outside of marriage’ people as well as a number of ‘Anti Sex for purposes other than procreation’ people. When it gets down to it if you can control the sex drive you can control almost anything. In any case a very large part of the anti abortion movement isn’t about saving children or preventing anything. It’s about power and control and punishing ’sinners’.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:08 pmYup, on all issues, the most consistent feature of the administrations policies is to twist and misinform as needed to disguise a hard right agenda that the American people would never stand for if it were presented honestly.
related: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:16 pmDuring the Clinton years, teen pregnancies were down to their lowest leels in 35 years.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:26 pmMissing the point. Gov’t should not be involved in any kind of sex-ed, abstinence or non-abstinence based.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:46 pmWrong Tony. Sex is a public health issue. It is no more or less relevant than civics. Leave your “clarity” in your taboo trunk.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 pmTony, raising young women who are ignorant in sexual issues will NOT make it easier for you to score.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:01 pmGood one hip.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:06 pmI would think tony would be for sex education, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancys would reduce the number of unwed mothers, and children on welfare.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:11 pmAbortion abailability and out-of-wedlock childbearing may be related, though. See “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States” by Akerlof, Yellen, and Katz.
Also, there is an unpublished paper entitled “Addicted to Love: a Dynamic Model of Teen Sex and Fertility” by Peter Arcidiacono at Duke University in which he models teen sex as habit-forming. Teens pay a fixed cost for the first-time, but not each subsequent time. In the shortrun, policies encouraging condom usage can reduce the costs associated with premarital sex which, in his longrun model, can lead to increases in sex in a person’s life which might amplify an epidemic. The paper has not been peer-reviewed, and I think it is currently being revised, but you may want to check it out when it becomes available.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:13 pmGeorge W. Bush = Mr. Consistency
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:19 pmWho is having more abortions, Democratic or Republican women?
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:19 pmLast time I checked this thread wasn’t about abortion Sam please stay on topic.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:22 pmI am not against sex ed. I am against gov’t mandating or spending tax money on any particular type of sex ed.
This is the true pro-freedom/conservative/republican position.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:34 pmWhat has Hollywood done to prevent unwanted pregnancies lately? Anything? It seems to me that not having sex as a teenager would stop the spread of many of the diseases and unwanted babies. Unfortunately, the left does not see it that way. I believe that is how God would want us to live. I know not many of you believe in Him, but there is always hope.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:35 pmPoor people have more abortions you piece of sh*t.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:36 pmNot sure what hollywood has to do with this thread either. comprehensive sex ed has proven to lower the spread of std’s and teen pregnancies. By doing so it also lowers the number of abortions performed. Fewer unwanted pregnacies fewer abortions.
All public school sex ed classes have an opt-out if the parent chooses.
you can teach abstinence only untill your blue in the face but emperical evidence suggests that it does not work.
Please do not attack my faith. you are showing your true colors by posting snarky attacks here, because you know you are wrong.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:39 pmYou’re a stooge plant, Sam. Noone on this website is more anti-abortion than I. Give it up.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:41 pmNice try, Tony.
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:42 pmDo you believe the city should drive around at night spraying for mosquitos?
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:44 pm“Pharisee justify their inconsistancy”
#14 – Hey Sam,
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:07 pm1. Can you then tell us why you stand for abstinence only wich basically gives false and mis-leading education?
2. Can you tell us why you’re basically against information about birth control that will reduce abortion?
3. Can you tell us your age when you first got laid? Were you married? Did you wear a condom? Did you “save� yourself for your spouse?
4. Do you tell your daughter not to have sex but not your son?
If the democratic party is so supportive of abortions, could you not conclude that the majority of abortions are performed on democratic women? This being said, over the last 32 years there have been over 35 million abortions performed. How many more democratic voters would there have been in the last election had Roe v. Wade never occurred?
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:07 pmOnce again Sam pretty off topic, but thank you for playing.
No your hypothesis cannot be substantiated. Please try critical thinking, and use of emperical evidence. Rush does not count.
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:09 pmSam,
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:11 pmNo one likes or supports abortions. To say something like that you must have never been pregnant(unlike myself). Please answer the questions in #20 so I can gauge your responsibility index.
This is the second time I’ve posted those questions to the anti crowd and NOT ONE has answered! Anyone surprised?
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:13 pmSam, are you really that nuts? Or are you a plant to stir up arguments?
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:36 pmSam,
Bush paid for one of his girlfriends to have an abortion – so obviously it ain’t a liberal thing… Lots of little rich girls get abortions to prevent the ’scandal’ that would otherwise besmirch their reputation…
This is yet another example of right wing rubbish propaganda. As bush once stated ‘poor people aren’t necessarily criminals’, as his rich friends on the right were bilking enron stockholders. The victorian delusions of the right wing are always grounded in anecdotes, and almost never grounded in relevant facts.
Abstinence only programs have shown increases in anal intercourse (6x more likely), increases in abortion, and increases in STDs and unsafe sex. These are programs in ‘christian’, ‘conservative’ and ‘republican’ communities – not just democratic ones. Red states have shown as much or more increases in abortion than blue states. Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and Texas have all seen increases of abortions under Bush – despite showing decreases or relatively small increases under clinton in those same states. Ironically Mass. is the most liberal state, and it has both the lowest abortion rates, as well as having dropped in the number of abortions under bush. To ‘imply’ that abortions are a ‘democratic’ thing – shows your utter ignorance and stupidity. Get a clue!
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pmI’m pro-abortion. My two abortions were two of the best decisions I’ve ever made. I’m tired of everyone apologizing for abortion. Even the term pro-choice plays into the rightwings hand.
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmIt isn’t abortion rights – it’s reproductive rights. Women have a right to the knowledge, tools and facilities to control, treat and manage their own boddies. A retarded man like sam has no rights over a woman’s body. He’s the same neandrathal personality who would rape a woman and claim she had no right to an abortion!
The reality is that until alpha waves occur, a fetus is NOT a child – in the same way that Terri Schiavo was no longer a person. In ’science’, alpha waves are what make us alive and human, and separate us from petri dishes of cells. Any voodoo religious bigot who claims otherwise is just a clueless retard!
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:53 pmPoint taken, Mud.
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:54 pmRyan Neat, when do brain waves start to occur? Isn’t it around 6 weeks after conception? Do you support legal abortion after that time?
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:02 pmmudkitty- 1) Were you glad you weren’t aborted? 2) If your children had survived to birth and on to adulthood, would you guess they would be happy to be alive?
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:04 pmTell you what Tony,
if you so unhappy about abortion why don’t you feed , clothe, and raise all of the unwanted children?
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:09 pmI have children. They are my life. I would die 1000 deaths for them.
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:14 pmBut until the day they can overtake me I am their alpha and omega.
Not Tony.
Are you glad you weren’t aborted? You can’t be serious – really? Sometimes I feel I wish I were aborted. Hmmm Isn’t that a country song or something? Actually, now that I think about it, yes, sometimes I do feel like I wish I were aborted. Especially, since 2000.
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:48 pmSpeaking for Mudkitty (who can do this very well by herself, I just can’t help it), this is her business how she feels. THAT is the point, it is her business. What if Congress decided it would like to prevent vasectomies for men under the age of 35? Further, mandatory vasectomies (which as I write, I’m starting to advocate) at age 65?
What if Mudkitty had 14 children and two more would send them all to foster homes? What if MK had a disease that would most assuredly be passed to offspring? She wouldn’t want to have children that would be a drain on the State. I mean, Medicare being such a bad idea and all, she wouldn’t want that. What are the chances of a couple wanting to adopt a severely disabled child?
See, it’s these questions that have to be taken on an individual basis. And, since we don’t want bigger government to have to weigh in on every person’s decision individually. How long would that take? They tried this with T. Shaivo and, all of a sudden, people started seeing how bad it could actually be.
Kids will have sex. No one really thinks abstinence only will work. They couldn’t be so stupid and still be able to find their way to a job every day. That is silly.
Banning abortion is not stopping abortion in any way whatsoever. Even if not one doctor ever did another abortion, it will still happen. As soon as that is realized, then abortion will not be talked about anymore. It will soon be a moot point. Kind of like, remember when we all thought the earth was flat, that was cooky, huh?
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:08 pmMy lack of God, just when you think Republican arguments couldn’t get any stupider…
If the democratic party is so supportive of abortions, could you not conclude that the majority of abortions are performed on democratic women?
Um, no, you couldn’t. Not correctly, anyway. Because the belief that an activity should be legal doesn’t imply an intent to practice that activity. I fully support your legal right to be an idiot, even though I have no desire to be an idiot myself.
This being said, over the last 32 years there have been over 35 million abortions performed. How many more democratic voters would there have been in the last election had Roe v. Wade never occurred?
There it is: Sam thinks that political affiliations are hereditary. [rolls eyes]
Hey, Sam, when a Democrat marries a Republican, what kind of offspring do they produce? A Libertarian?
Maybe this explains all of those Republicans who claim that they used to be Democrats until the party left them. Actually, they just found out that they were adopted.
Since there aren’t that many Greens, are Green genes recessive? Maybe Hugh Brannum should answer that one.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:11 pmThis debate is great but if you think that Bush truly gives a sh!t about it either way, you’re kidding yourself. The abortion topic, and his “position” on it is just a Rove-engineered tactic to keep ‘pro-lifers’ interested in voting for him. The fact that his pro-life stance and abstinence-only education are counterintuitive is meaningless. He’s repaying the voters (and campaign contributors), simple as that.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:11 pmLet’s not forget: “I’ve got this abortion thang”-Gary Stewart or “I’ve got friends in abortion places”-Garth Brooks.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:19 pm“Ryan Neat, when do brain waves start to occur? Isn’t it around 6 weeks after conception? Do you support legal abortion after that time?”
Tony – you’re an absolute moron. While ‘brain waves’ can be detect at 6 weeks, these are NOT alpha waves, they are the same kind of brain waves that were present in Terri Schiavo and this ‘muddling’ of the issue is consistent with the pseudo and voodoo science of the right wing taliban. Alpha waves don’t occur until between the 28th and 32nd week of pregnancy (although they aren’t consistent generally until the 32nd week) which interestingly enough is at about the point where an ‘aborted’ fetus is in fact an ‘early term’ child.
In otherwords the entire abortion issue is a red herring of the intellectually and morally stunted morons of the right. It’s a no-go issue for anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology and science, and anyone who brings it up from a ’scientific’ perspect is just an ill informed moron!
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:24 pmActually, I was humming: “Boot Scootin Abortion” or maybe it was Randy Travis’: “Diggin up Abortions.” Dark and sarcastic – can’t be helped in this day and age.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:33 pmTony: when do brain waves start to occur?
In your case, we’re hoping sometime next month.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:39 pmThis is an endless argument. When the pro-lifers agree to clothe, feed, house, and educate all the children, they will have credibility. Pro-choicers are NOT pro-abortion! We wish they weren’t necessary, but when a 14 year old girl is impregnated by a relative – when a desperate married couple has birth control failure – when tests indicate irreparable defects – there are no good choices. Many pro-lifers say never to abortion, except in the case of rape or incest. They cannot explain their justification of how the product of that encounter can be aborted. Children begetting children is unhealthy for both mother and baby. I note that so many of the loudest voices belong to men. It sort of fits with the conservative/religious right-wing zealots who believe in keeping women down – in the kitchen, and taking care of their “menfolk.”
August 2nd, 2005 at 5:07 pmwell put Marie.
August 2nd, 2005 at 5:34 pmMarie,
It’s because these sad pathetic men fear they will never procreate if they don’t control women’s reproductive rights. It’s a fear that may be well placed based on their boorish, self serving, uncivilized and irrational personalities… But the issue isn’t abortion – it’s their own anti-social and sociopathic personalities!
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:09 pmI have 2 friends who are vehemently anti-abortion.
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:24 pmOne grew up in foster care. The other never met his father.
It’s not about controlling women to them. They feel they know something about life that normal people don’t. They place such a high regard on their own lives they think they know what is best for all “unwanted children”.
They are both GOP. This is the recurring thread with the GOP. Father knows best.
Brian,
Your entire argument is framing ‘nonsense’. The fact is that you’re using ‘unwanted children’ as a phrase to describe something that is NOT A CHILD – it is a fetus. It only becomes a child when it has alpha waves. Your language is similar to how they kept talking about ‘killing Terri’, when by scientific and human standards she was already dead – and only her ‘body/cells’ were still alive.
A scientist could take a skin graft from you, and keep it alive in a laboratory indefinitely – that doesn’t mean YOU are alive.
What your friends ‘feel’ is irrelevant to this situation, as their feelings have no place in dictating the reproductive rights of women, nor are the relevant from a scientific perspective. In the same way that one’s ‘religious’ beliefs are irrelevant to the pursuit of science which proves evolution and disproves christian mythology.
Just because you have a strong emotion about something because of your own irrational fear of abandonment, doesn’t give you the right to take the freedoms, rights and scientifically appropriate health care away from others. It’s the tyranny of ignorance and arrogance over science and reason. Tell you friends to go get therapy, and get over it!
August 2nd, 2005 at 6:45 pmThe jargon used by the religious zealots would have us think that every cell, zygote, embryo is a human being. Ryan is right when he says it is more of a power struggle for control. They like to believe and force upon us the “Father knows best” approach.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:06 pmAt a funeral this week – in the tract near all the pews were pamphlets denouncing “abortion.” It was disconcerting at best. I didn’t see any pamphlets denouncing pedophilia. Hypocrisy. It is at the root of all these arguments.
Marie,
Well said! How about pamphlets that denounce war, rape, incest and physical child abuse. How about pamphlets that denounce greed which is so rampant in CONservative christians that they’d rather let children starve than have government taxes necessary to pay for those children.
CONservatives are the greedy, power hungry and arrogant assholes of every society. They wish to either keep or ‘be’ the status quo – and are arrogant enough to believe that they should keep others under their foot. They have no compassion – although ironically it couches all of their hate filled language…
Abortion is a non-starter argument. A fetus is not a child, and calling one out of ‘ignorance’ and ’stupidity’ no more makes it so, than calling ‘creationism’ science makes it so. They’re both stupid babble of the indoctrinated retards of the right.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:23 pmCool down, Neat.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:25 pmI disagree with my friends 200%. It is not only about controlling women, as you suggest.
You need to read all posts by people before you jump to conclusions, Ryan. I’m on your side.
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:28 pmBrian,
I get very annoyed at the dishonesty involved in this issue – sorry if I snapped at you inappropriately. It would help me if you couched your reply as ‘but I disagree with them of course’, as it looked like you supported their opinion by the single post – which is all I was responding to…
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:39 pmAnother post where the right wing’s contribution does absolutely nothing to move the discussion forward.
August 2nd, 2005 at 8:03 pmNo brain waves ’till the 23rd week. Brain waves can not be detected at 6 weeks. A pregnancy can barely be detected at 6 weeks.
An acorn is not an oak tree, and a fetus is not a baby.
Tony, if I had been aborted, I wouldn’t know the difference. Let me ask you this…which is more tragic; a miscarriage/abortion, or the death of a 10 year old child? The so-called agonies of abortion are just so much cheap sentiment.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:42 amIf you were in a fertility clinic that caught fire, and you had to choose between saving a ten year old child, and saving a freezer full of embryos, which would you choose? If you believe the Republican talking points, you would have to choose the freezer and allow the ten year old to die screaming.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:20 amThe Pragmatist – Since people are going to pilfer anyway, at least we could prevent senseless deaths of clerks at 7-11’s across the country and jacked-up prices of consumer products due to security cost by legalizing stealing. So with that sort of logic, I could buy the abortionist’s view and the contraceptionist’s view. Let’s undermine our youth and general public by always fighting for what is successful rather than what is truly right. Life is always right and good. Preventing it or willfully killing it will never be a good means to a good end. if you don’t agree, what are you really saying? let’s talk about it…
September 14th, 2005 at 7:36 pmIs an abortion/miscarriage less sad than the death of a ten year old child? I don’t think so. Both of my grandmothers had miscarriages, and the event was as hard on them as the death of my uncle Kevin when he was very young. It’s still potential lost. The fetus, whether or not it’s actually a human being, still has the potently real potential of becoming a human being – and it’s well on its way toward that. One of the saddest things about the death of a child is that it will never have a chance to live – ten years is a painfully short time, and in a way, they’ve only really just begun to experience life when it’s snatched away from them. In such a way we can steal the life of what is soon to be just such a child, and never give it a chance at even that.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:45 amhttp://freepages.kconline.com/osiladi/girls/index.html allrightdrownsoaking
November 19th, 2005 at 4:01 pmCameron Diaz
Cameron Diaz
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:18 pmjennifer lopez
jennifer lopez
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:19 amfree nextel ringtones
free nextel ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:11 amDragonball
Dragonball
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:57 amJessica Simpson
jessica simpson
December 25th, 2005 at 8:53 amfree song lyrics
free song lyrics
December 25th, 2005 at 9:05 amjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 3:43 pmsports tickets
sports tickets
December 30th, 2005 at 11:09 pminternationl cell phone
office http://www.freewebs.com/electros/office-phone-system/ office phone system http://www.freewebs.com/electros/cellular-phone-plan/ cellular phone plan http://www.freewebs.com/electros/cellular-phone-ringtone/ cellular phone ringtone
December 31st, 2005 at 6:34 pmjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 4:17 pmjewellery
jewellery
January 1st, 2006 at 11:31 pmhttp://qiklana.optus.nu/incest/xxx_adult_incest/cousin.html hatslikessweatshirts
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 am