Sometimes I’m not entirely sure why there’s not more feminist blogging on the global gag rule. I mean, there’s a lot, but not enough in my opinion. I suspect it’s a combination of the issue seeming complex, both because it’s international and well, mostly because it’s about international politics and the fact that foreign aid programs are sort of infinitely complex makes writing about them scary. But it’s actually a fairly easy situation to grasp the basics. Donna Crane of NARAL has a YouTube video where she explains the parameters of the issue in 90 seconds.
For the purposes of political language and framing, this is a place where the left has really dropped the ball and let right wing disinformation clog up the pipelines. The selling point of the global gag rule is that without it, the U.S. is paying for overseas abortions and golly, people shouldn’t have to pay for things they find immoral with their tax dollars, right? The argument is simple-minded and stupid, but as you full well know, those are not strikes against a political frame in modern day politics.
There are a number of things wrong with this argument, which is why I think more blogging would be helpful, just to get the truth out there.
- C’mon! If it was true that we should ban every government program every nutjob has a moral issue with, we’d have no government programs. Plus, reasonable people have much more reasonable moral issues with things like war, and we’re not banning that any time soon. Why should be pander to crazies when reasonable people don’t even have a say in moral funding issues?
- Withholding or opposing abortion is the immoral stance, taken out of a hostility to women’s health and women’s rights. Anti-choicers shouldn’t have the moral high ground, because they are wicked, petty assholes who want to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy their misogyny. To be a truly moral person, you can’t exclude half the human race from your consideration.
- The global gag rule isn’t just about abortion. That’s basically, in any realistic sense, a lie. It’s about withholding medical care and contraception. Even without it, the U.S. simply doesn’t fund abortions (though I think they should). It’s a backdoor way to deprive women worldwide of contraception and basic health care, since the people who provide those things pretty much by definition are good-hearted non-misogynists, and thus mostly believe as the logical and good-hearted generally do that abortion is a moral good.* The global gag rule is about giving the U.S. power to root through clinics worldwide looking for evidence of appalling levels of human feeling towards women and depriving them of funding if they find that someone’s committed the thought crime of believing that women should have full rights and options.
The last is the killer point: The global gag rule is about depriving peope of contraception, STD prevention, well baby care, after-abortion care, post-partum care, prenatal care, and gynecological care, all by pretending it’s about abortion. The reason that anti-choicers feel it’s mandatory for their President to push the global gag rule is because they don’t want women to prevent pregnancy or STDs, and this backdoor method works really well for them. Therefore it’s a good way to drive home to people how the anti-choice movement isn’t about some well-meaning love of babies, but about sex hatred and misogyny. NARAL sent me a list of ways the global gag rule has been used to deprive people of basic health care.
- In Nepal, the government threw a 13-year-old rape victim in jail for having an illegal abortion. The Family Planning Association of Nepal used her case and others to advocate for the release of women in jail for having abortions. For this, they were deemed
thought criminalsin violation of the global gag rule and funding was terminated. - In Kenya, funding is lean and mean, so having entirely separate facilities for abortion is pretty much impossible. Under the global gag rule, though, you can’t even have abortions under your roof, even if not a U.S. dollar goes for them. This rule has meant that the Family Planning Association of Kenya has cut its staff in half and closed down 3 clinics, one that had a huge well baby program and post-partum care. Depriving babies of medical care is another sign that pro-lifers don’t actually love babies. They just hate women.
- Planned Parenthood of Zambia was deprived of enough funding under this that they shut down 3 of 9 rural clinics, depriving all the people in that area of one of their few, in any, sources for affordable condoms.
- The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia can’t refer women to abortion services or perform abortions, since abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. Still, they have lost half a million dollars that went pretty much strictly to providing condoms and contraceptives, because they have participated in educating the government in how illegal abortions contribute significantly to their high maternal mortality rate.
The global gag rule is about depriving people of condoms and contraceptives through the back door. The issue of AIDS alone should drive home how immoral this is. But it’s about more than just AIDS—Americans have no idea how serious it can get if people are deprived of the ability to control their fertility. Just read up on the problem of fistulas, which are permanent injuries caused by childbirth that creates a hole between your vagina and urinary tract and leaves you in a situation where you’re walking around basically pissing yourself all day. The global gag rule is about increasing the rate of AIDS, of fistulas, of maternal morality, all to satisfy the grim anti-sex movement in America.
And Congress is trying to overturn it. Write them and encourage them to stand up for basic decency and repeal the global gag rule.
*If you feel like you are a moral person despite being anti-choice, I agree that it’s possible you are. All moral people have moral lapses and blind spots. Getting towards a more generous stance towards women who need to control their fertility could be a project for you, a bit of moral character improvement.
99 Responses to “Repeal the global gag rule”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I thought the reason we didn’t hear much about the global gag rule was because we all agree it’s bad, but as long as Bush is president we can’t really stop it. There’s actually liberals who don’t realize it’s horrible? Ick.
Anti-choicers shouldn’t have the moral high ground, because they are wicked, petty assholes who want to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy their misogyny.
Yes, you know who was a wicked, petty asshole who wanted to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy her misogyny? Mother Teresa. That bitch!
Yes, you know who was a wicked, petty asshole who wanted to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy her misogyny? Mother Teresa. That bitch!
get stuffed. mother teresa was an asshole control freak who had huge doubts about the existence of god anyway.
The reason there isn’t more bogging by US feminists over the gag rule is that Americans have a tendency toward solipsism, and we lefties aren’t always capable of transcending our cultural limitations.
“Yes, you know who was a wicked, petty asshole who wanted to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy her misogyny? Mother Teresa. That bitch!”
Among other qualities, both good and bad, indeed Mother Teresa was against choice and therefore in favor of increased suffering for a subset of people.
It’s the truth. Accept it or continue to live in a state of denial…
Actually, Observer, yeah. Part of Mother Teresa’s schtick was that she was quite the fan of suffering. Sincere? Yes. Above reproach? Not so much.
Observer:
Didn’t read Amanda’s asterisk at all did you?
Just because Mother Theresa did significant good works during her lifetime doesn’t mean that she wasn’t petty and, yes, wicked, on certain issues. The fact that she was outspoken on the abortion issue, and dutifully repeated the Vatican line, suggests that–at best–her emotional investment in her preferred mythology was so great that she often spoke against the health and liberty interests of women and children. At worst, it suggests that she genuinely believed that pregnancy is a divine punishment inflicted on women for sex.
Every human being on the planet–Catholics and non-Catholics included–is not automatically required to revere Mother Theresa, or to refrain from a careful examination of her ethics You comments seems to suggest that you think as much, which is really a childlike attitude towards morality.
You’re not responding to Amanda’s claim that abortion is a moral good. You’re engaging in an appeal to authority. In other words, you’re misleading.
I think choice for Americans has been under such heavy attack that fighting the gag rule has been a lesser priority.
NGOs have found certain ways around it. i once worked for one that specialized in post-abortion care.
Actually, Observer, I am not sure why you assume that Mother Theresa is above criticism.
Mother Theresa’s morality absolutely DID seem to consist of an anti-sex, anti-woman, pro-suffering mentality, and in addition to the good she did, this mentality also caused her to do great harm. Mother Theresa believed that suffering is a GOOD thing, something that God wants us to learn from and also an opportunity for others to store up treasure in heaven by helping out. According to the many articles criticizing her (linked in the Wikipedia piece about her), she affirmatively refused to spend the millions of dollars in donations her organization received from around the world because she thought that poverty is a good thing. She preferred the moral virtue of poverty to providing the greater material resources she had at her disposal to the poor she was purporting to serve — even to the point of recycling needles until they became blunt and painful to her organization’s patients. This same petty morality blithely applied to the poor of India also extended to women suffering from unwanted pregnancies and related health conditions.
I don’t think we get to unquestioningly let Mother Theresa off the hook just because the west considers her a saint.
Yes, you know who was a wicked, petty asshole who wanted to increase the amount of suffering in the world to satisfy her misogyny? Mother Teresa. That bitch!
I wouldn’t use a misogynist term like “bitch” that comes so readily to mind for you, but Mother Teresa was well known for her desire to maximize the suffering of those under her “care” because she had a theological interest in suffering. Granted, she was pro-suffering for men and women, but of course, women must bear even more. Maybe before you make unclever jokes, you should educate yourself so as to prevent future instances of making a fool of yourself.
If pro-abortion supporters really think this is important, why not fund these things privately instead of through tax dollars?
sharon, at issue is that the gag rule said that private dollars could no be used to give certain kinds of medical advice if ANY tax dollars were filtered through international aid organizations to these clinics.
Of course, ultimately, the decision was simply to rescind the strings attached to the dollars and allow medical professionals to give medical advice as they saw fit, unencumbered by the opinions of politicians in washington.
I see no reason to disallow private money to be spent by citizens as they see fit. Government support is a different issue.
Of course, there would be no gag rule if Gore was President, but Ralph Nader said there was no difference between Bush and Gore, so YMMV,
sharon - I think you’d be surprised at how many do. Nonetheless, women’s health world-wide is an important and large enough issue to warrant government funding, and endangering thousands of women and children worldwide over the kind of pettiness this administration has is unconscionable.
sharon, if pro-war supporters think war is so important, why not fund their wars privately instead of through tax dollars?
i haven’t heard much about this gag rule thing… maybe its cause I’m canadian,, i dunno. why is it called a gag rule? I apologize if thats a really stupid question… i just don’t get it.
If pro-abortion supporters really think this is important, why not fund these things privately instead of through tax dollars?
If war supporters really this the Iraq war is so important, why didn’t they fund it privately instead of through tax dollar?
In all seriousness, you seem to be missing the point of Amanda’s post. Regardless of your views on U.S. funding for abortion services in other nations, the U.S. could not legally provide such funding prior to the gag rule. The point is that the gag rule has poisoned the entire breadth of women’s and children’s health services internationally, such that its effects go far beyond the prevention of U.S. tax dollars paying for abortions.
If private donations could sustain the bare minimum requirements for women’s and children’s health care in the developing world, they would probably already be doing so. One of the advantages of USAID and other programs for U.S. foreign aid is the coordination of its ostensibly humanitarian mission with the other arms of the U.S. government–the larger State Department, the Defense Department, and the White House itself, to name a few. They can persuade, cajole, and coerce uncooperative or hostile governments and permit USAID funding to act where private foundations and non-governmental organizations could not. At least, that’s the ideal.
“If pro-abortion supporters really think this is important, why not fund these things privately instead of through tax dollars?”
Except the ‘this’ in this instance winds up being pretty much any legitimate medical care or advice given to or debated on behalf of women of child-bearing age. Seriously, did you even read the post? And if the only people who think that’s really important are “pro-abortion supporters,” we have as a society have a serious problem.
I think that there isn’t more blogging on the issue because there is so little development. I think that we screamed and yelled for a long time, and then realized that as long as Bush is in office, we’re fucked. It’s still an important issue, but since no advancements are being made, there’s not a lot to say. Of course, more posts about the specific suffering that women are enduring due to the rule would be prudent, but it can be difficult to find regular articles on the subject.
I definitely do think, thought, that it’s important to bring up periodically so that people don’t forget, and so that those who are new to political awareness understand what is going on. Which is why posts like this one are important.
Frog Queen, it’s called the “gag rule” because it effectively “gags” health workers who work for organizations that receive U.S. funding to even MENTION abortion. “Gag’ is slang for “preventing another’s speech, often violently.” Sorry if that’s obvious, but you asked and I have no idea if “gag” is an internationally understood term.
sharon, if pro-war supporters think war is so important, why not fund their wars privately instead of through tax dollars?
Because war and the military are legitimate uses of taxpayer funding, and the Constitution provides for having a standing army. Family planning, abortion, contraceptives don’t really fall into the same categories. A better analogy might be to consider the tax exempt status of churches, for instance, and why that is supported.
Except the ‘this’ in this instance winds up being pretty much any legitimate medical care or advice given to or debated on behalf of women of child-bearing age.
Right, and I said that whatever parts of the rule disallow private funding for such activities is wrong. But I don’t see that not allowing taxpayer money to be spent this way is unconstitutional.
sharon, you’re using a statement I’ve seen before, and I want to take issue with. I don’t think there exists a statistically significant number of people who are “pro-abortion” in the same way mainstream “pro-lifers” are pro-life. That is, I don’t think I’ve met anybody who believes that every pregnancy, for every woman, should be mandatorilly terminated. Just pointing this out.
Taxes for war are fine. Killing people is awesome! But if you don’t like the military, I’ll protect any of you lovely ladies with my arms collection(for a reasonable “fee”, of course).
“Right, and I said that whatever parts of the rule disallow private funding for such activities is wrong.”
The problem isn’t that the rule disallows private funding. It doesn’t. It does, however, cut off every cent of public funding from any organization that admits, in however hypothetical a fashion, that abortion exists.
Basically, what you’re asking is why, if “pro-abortion supporters” care so damn much about abortion, why don’t they step up and privately fund a center that does nothing but provide health care to impoverished orphans, but had the gall to point out to their government that half their orphans wouldn’t be orphans but for abortion being illegal? And an organization that does nothing but provide maternity care, but has advocated for more rural access to abortion on behalf of the patients likely to die from complications? And a clinic that does nothing but treat STDs and hand out condoms, but is overseen by an organization that, among other things, will provide abortions for women who would otherwise be killed by the pregnancy? Etc., etc., etc.
Private funds could take up the abortion-specific slack, which means that not funding abortion itself isn’t a very big stick to hit international aid organizations with. To get what they wanted, they had to take away enough (everything, to be precise) to make sure that private donations couldn’t cover the services that would be lost. You’re coming out with the foreign aid equivalent of “Why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourself.”
Sharon, did you actually read the examples listed?
Under the global gag rule, though, you can’t even have abortions under your roof, even if not a U.S. dollar goes for them. This rule has meant that the Family Planning Association of Kenya has cut its staff in half and closed down 3 clinics, one that had a huge well baby program and post-partum care.
Your tax dollars were not used to pay for abortions, but because of the gag rule, the clinics were shut down.
The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia can’t refer women to abortion services or perform abortions, since abortion is illegal in Ethiopia. Still, they have lost half a million dollars that went pretty much strictly to providing condoms and contraceptives, because they have participated in educating the government in how illegal abortions contribute significantly to their high maternal mortality rate.
A group that does not in any way provide abortions lost their funding because they talked about the problem of illegal abortions. That’s pretty ridiculous.
It’s all part and parcel to the standard Republican response to any problem: “pretend it doesn’t exist”. If we don’t talk about X, then X isn’t real, and if we talk about X, then X will take over. So mentioning the existence of sex makes teenagers go out and have sex. Talking about soldiers dying in the war is worse than soldiers actually dying.
Same old bullshit.
If religion’s supporters really think that prayer is important, why not fund renounce their tax benefits and fund their churches privately instead of through tax-exempt dollars?Sharon why is war legitimate and health care is not? That is an assumption of yours, rather than a shared starting point with your audience. Thus, to be understood you must back up and support the statement rather than pretending that everyone in a democratic society agrees. Anyway, why is war legitimate?
I see no reason to link Government support to a specific theology, especially when doing so causes no end of harm to the people who are supposedly to be helped.
Why do the fundies get to be the de facto choice? War is good, womminz is evil isn’t even close to what I was taught growing up Catholic. If they want to gag people, they should have to prove why the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to the tax dollars we use for foreign aid.
“I don’t like it” simply isn’t a good enough reason. If the money is to go toward healthcare, then it should go to real healthcare, not pretend abstinence bullshit.
Yeah, like the current Dem leadership in Congress has the stones to do this. They are too busy denigrating their own base whilst trying to peel away votes from the 25% of Americans who would neverevereverevereverEVER! vote Democrat.
I’m going to make a prediction here. The Dem performance in 2008 will be far, far poorer than they anticipate. They are alienating liberals and progressives by abandoning their objectives and principles, and they are alienating independents because of their inaction on the war and their constant, demonstrated weakness. Today’s call for 2008: record low turnouts; surprisingly large GOP votes; record levels of vote fraud in bellweather areas.
You read it here first.
There’s probably a racial component to all this as well, since it seems like the people hardest hit are from African nations.
Sharon, I’d support the global gag rule if you support my moral crusade to dismantle the military. You are free to pay for a private army if you want one.
Going out to Tinfoil Hattie,
Mea Culpa, I usually don’t talk like that, but bullies really set me off, and that’s what Malkin and her ilk are, sanctimonious, irrational, bullies.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7256.html
In the future I resolve to not post while sipping Bushmills and listening to rebel tunes. From now on, only red grenadine and Jerry when I’m reading Pandagon.
well, maybe some Cheiftians.
Peace
Entomologista wrote:
Why? Wouldn’t this result in more Africans?
Just a little bit about the Constitution and public goods (such as national defense) as well as the scope of the GGR>
1. The Preamble to the US Constitution provides for both “common defense” and “general welfare”.
2. Under 22 USC Section 2151b (Chapter 32) the President has the authority to provide assistance, on whatever basis he may choose, for voluntary family planning programs.
3. According to the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123.html) funds can be used for post-abortion care.
Regardless, the common welfare is as much of a public good as common defense. The Supreme Court ruled that this kind of funding restriction is NOT unconstitutional, however, this restriction on speech WOULD BE unconstitutional if promulgated inside the United States.
More poor and unhealthy Africans, Dana.
Actually, I see a perfect way out: we shouldn’t spend any of our tax dollars at all on this! No American dollars means no entangling American money, and thus no gag rule, and a lesser burden on the American taxpayers.
HW: As opposed to more dead Africans?
Whoa, that didn’t work
I’ll try again:
“Sharon, I’d support the global gag rule if you support my moral crusade to dismantle the military. You are free to pay for a private army if you want one.”
Looks like I get to check another box on my Libertarian Bingo Card!!!!
Sharon, I’d support the global gag rule if you support my moral crusade to dismantle the military. You are free to pay for a private army if you want one.
I’m not asking you to support the gag rule. You should support the military, given that it is their sacrifice throughout U.S. history which gives you the plentiful rights you enjoy. Having said that, however, I wouldn’t expect you to support the gag rule regardless of my support for the military. And really. It’s a pretty stupid comparison.
Dead adult African women, Dana.
Also men and children who have become infected with AIDS because the gag rule destroyed funding for condoms.
As the recent Trojan ad illustrated, condoms have an effect on the spread of STDs. AIDS is a problem in Africa*, more than it is over here, and having condoms available is a good way to slow the spread of the HIV virus while we race to find something to help.
You are concerned about potential lives. That’s a good thing to be concerned about. But you’re not seeing the damage and threats to actual lives. Don’t focus on the blastocyst-Americans at the expense of the postborn.
Whoops, messed up my tags there. Sorry!
If pro-abortion supporters really think this is important, why not fund these things privately instead of through tax dollars?
If you believe the gag rule is a good idea, consider the need the American economy has for Chinese money. What basis would you have for complaining if China made it a condition of those loans that the American government no longer criticised its human rights record or called for democracy internationally?
“You should support the military, given that it is their sacrifice throughout U.S. history which gives you the plentiful rights you enjoy.”
Yeah! ‘Cause America’s been invaded over and over again by those evil, godless Canadians and those wicked papist Mexicans throughout the last 230+ years.
Or, maybe not.
Maybe the purpose of the military is to be a large, powerful, and blunt tool in the hands of scheming, evil, manipulative men who see the use of military power as proof of their own masculine prowess.
Kinda like the current American President and his figurehead friend George Bush Jr.
And as far as “the plentiful rights you enjoy”, it seems Cheney/Bush have a big beef with that too. That seems to be why they’ve spent more energy dismantling our Constitution and Bill of Rights than they have looking for Bin Laden.
But I’m sure that’s no concern of yours, sharon, ‘cause you’re (probably) a rich, white Republican. You’ll always have rights, just as long as you can open your checkbook and pay for them…
EXCELLENT post. I’m passing it on to my best friend, just back from visiting Africa (she was a Peace Corps volunteer there five years ago)–if there was any kind of family planning clinic at all anywhere near her village, she certainly never heard about it.
Chan, how is the gag rule preventing the distribution of condoms?
Of course, I gave you the perfect solution: end all American funding of such programs, and then whatever restrictions on the use of the money that will exist will come from the French or the Germans or whatever other countries are providing the money.
You should support the military, given that it is their sacrifice throughout U.S. history which gives you the plentiful rights you enjoy.
Uh, rights an inherent component of one’s humanity. At best, they are bestowed by nature or a deity, if one believes in those sorts of things. Check your Constitution. Rights certainly aren’t “given” by means any sacrifice made by the members of the United States military. The military may–ideally–protect our borders from invasion and our bodies from harm, but that doesn’t mean they “give” us rights. They’re a safeguard against foreign anti-liberty interests. Just like checks and balances generally and the federal courts specifically are a safeguard against domestic anti-liberty interests. I would question whether the U.S. military fulfills its purpose any more, but that’s a different discussion.
Try to bring your understanding of law at least up to the Magna Carta, please.
All too typical, that many of the same hypocrites that go ballistic over abortion also support the Decider’s enormous postnatal abortion program in Iraq.
Mr Ess wrote:
Well, I know Sharon, and I can tell you that yes, she’s white, like our hostess, she’s a Texan, and while I don’t know if she’s registered as a Republican, her essays are mostly supportive of the GOP.
But wealthy? No, she’s not wealthy. She’s been rather poor at times in her life, and she and her husband are now essentially middle class.
I suppose that you think that all Republicans are wealthy. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have had many electoral victories, would we?
What’s the real difference? Judging by the 2004 election results, in which a majority of people from families making less than $50,000 voted for John Kerry, and a majority of people from families earning more than $50,000 voted for George Bush (with President Bush’s percentage of the vote increasing with every income group), I’d say that the difference is that Republicans are best categorized as tax payers, while Democrats are more likely to be tax consumers.
Because war and the military are legitimate uses of taxpayer funding, and the Constitution provides for having a standing army. Family planning, abortion, contraceptives don’t really fall into the same categories.
Just a question, Sharon, under the Constitution, which part of the Government has the power to declare war? When was this last exercised?
You may also find this interesting:
Or this
sharon:
Wow. I didn’t realize that I had the right to kill brown people for fun and profit.
Actually, now that I think about it, that’ll be the only right I have if you and your protofascist ilk get your way.
What’s the real difference? Judging by the 2004 election results, in which a majority of people from families making less than $50,000 voted for John Kerry, and a majority of people from families earning more than $50,000 voted for George Bush (with President Bush’s percentage of the vote increasing with every income group), I’d say that the difference is that Republicans are best categorized as tax payers, while Democrats are more likely to be tax consumers.
Yeah, right.
“But according to the Tax Foundation, the main reason so many blue states pay so much more than they get back is that their residents tend to earn more money and pay more income tax. William Ahern, the editor of the foundation’s reports, argues that if blue-staters voted their self-interest, they’d join his group in supporting Bush’s efforts to undo the United States’ progressive tax structure and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a backstop designed to catch upper-income tax avoiders. And red-staters, who are less well off, would stop supporting Bush and instead defend the progressive taxation that favors them. Not likely, Ahern concedes: “It appears they’ll follow President Bush wherever he leads them” while Democrats will “obey their instinct” and battle Bush.
But you can look at this topsy-turvy lineup another way. Blue-staters earn more on average and pay more in taxes, because they are better educated, more productive, less likely to be retired or disabled and generally healthier; rates of obesity, smoking and alcoholism (not to mention divorce and suicide) all peak in the South or West. The highly educated have always been healthier and earned more but more of them used to vote Republican; as the two parties have switched identities, these voters have gone Democratic.
What is not a factor, Ahern declares, is the greater political clout of the Republicans, who now control every branch of federal government for the first time since Reconstruction. But the numbers suggest that pork may play a part. The biggest recent losers in this sweepstakes, those whose balance of payments has improved most, tend to be red: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia. The biggest losers, those that are paying more and getting less, are blue: California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.”
“…I’d say that the difference is that Republicans are best categorized as tax payers, while Democrats are more likely to be tax consumers.”
Um, what?
All those “red” states in flyover country that unfailing vote for the “right” are net consumers of federal money, while “blue” states that tend to be more liberal are almost all net losers as far as getting federal money.
Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004
California (THE MOST POPULOUS STATE IN AMERICA), for example, gets something like $0.79 back for each dollar of tax money collected here.
Who is subsidizing whom?…
Piator and Mike beat me to it.
Analyzing statistical data is obviously not Dana’s strong suit.
The Congress should have introduced the bill repealing the Global Gag Rule as a constitutional amendment.
Dana: Why? Wouldn’t this result in more Africans?
No, it doesn’t, because denying people health care - which is what the global gag rule does - ensures that more people die. Especially when that includes denying people condoms and safer-sex advice in a country where AIDS is epidemic. So, if you care about poor people worldwide, Dana: oppose the global gag rule.
If I’ve got this right, Sharon actually opposes the global gag rule, because the global gag rule prevents organizations from receiving private donations to cover abortions. Cool. (Of course, I bet Sharon will change her “mind” about this as soon as she gets her next shot of right-wing Kool Aid, and she’ll suddenly decide that it’s OK to cut off US aid for health care that does NOT INCLUDE abortions IN ORDER TO STOP PRIVATE DONATIONS paying for abortions.)
Dan: Analyzing statistical data is obviously not Dana’s strong suit.
No, it sure isn’t.
Dennis Perrin said it better than I ever could.PIATOR and Mike beat me to it, too. And Dana beat me to the comment about PIATOR and Mike beating him to it.
Dammit!
Sharon, what article in the Constitution provides for a standing army? The third amendment indicates an antipathy toward standing armies and militarism. The next closest phrase would be in Article IV, either section 1 or 2, where it enumerates the president has the power to control the army and navy or any state militias should they be needed for federal purposes. It does not, however, proscribe a standing federal army.
You should remember the founding fathers were quite *against* the idea of a standing army. Notably George Washington and James Madison. Quoth James:
Or how about Patrick Henry? Here’s a link to The Future of Freedom Foundation where this is discussed in detail.
If the military gives us our freedom, and we have the most powerful military in the world, why don’t we have the most freedom in the world? Why was Habeas revoked? Where did the Patriot Act come from? Where did this idea of free speech zones come from? Why are students getting tasered at political meetings? Why is the FBI spying on peace groups?
Ok, here we go. The foreign aid bill repealing the global gag rule has passed the house and senate. Now it’s going to conference committee. These are the people to lobby to keep it going:
Leahy; Inouye; Harkin; Mikulski; Durbin; Johnson; Landrieu; Reed; Byrd; Gregg; McConnell; Specter; Bennett; Bond; Brownback; Alexander; Cochran.
I don’t think the House members appointed to the conference committee have been chosen yet.
Keep an eye on this page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02764:
PIATOR and Mike beat me to it, too. And Dana beat me to the comment about PIATOR and Mike beating him to it.
Eight to the bar, baby.
I’d like to put it down to my natural talent and training in the estoteric arts of research. In actual fact, it’s because I logged in in the morning on the other side of the world.
Why? Wouldn’t this result in more Africans?
I do believe AIDS kills, so no.
You should support the military, given that it is their sacrifice throughout U.S. history which gives you the plentiful rights you enjoy. Having said that, however, I wouldn’t expect you to support the gag rule regardless of my support for the military. And really. It’s a pretty stupid comparison.
You’re mixing up the intelligence level of the audience that doesn’t get it (you) with the argument itself, which is not stupid.
Not to distract from this fascinating back and forth about the moral correctness of the military, but I’d like to point out an important fact:
It has been illegal to use U.S. foreign aid to support abortion care since the Helms Amendment was passed in 1973. That’s the beautiful thing about the gag rule. It has nothing to do with “U.S. taxpayer dollars paying for abortion.” It doesn’t prevent a single darn abortion. It prevents agencies from using THEIR OWN dollars to provide abortion care, or abortion counseling, or asking their governments to liberalize the abortion law.
(Forgive me if this was mentioned already. I got distracted by Mother Theresa.)
So given that well-educated pro-choice advocates think we’re talking about funding abortions overseas, it seems clear to me that this is a debate we let go of 30 years ago when we decided to live with the Helms Amendment.
zippy: It has been illegal to use U.S. foreign aid to support abortion care since the Helms Amendment was passed in 1973. That’s the beautiful thing about the gag rule. It has nothing to do with “U.S. taxpayer dollars paying for abortion.” It doesn’t prevent a single darn abortion. It prevents agencies from using THEIR OWN dollars to provide abortion care, or abortion counseling, or asking their governments to liberalize the abortion law.
Yes. And, bizarrely, Sharon - who is ordinarily the most right-wing Kool Aid drinker imaginable - actually said, more or less, that she opposes the global gag rule - what she’s for is the Helms Amendment. It seems that the global gag rule is misunderstood even by people who are in the natural support group for it.
Yet another example, I guess, of the hardliners not being able to get support for their policies if they’re clear and specific about what their policies do: they have got to lie about them to get people to support them.
Whew. I thought it was just me–sharon apparently willfully misreads everyone’s points.You don’t really need another reason to oppose the hateful and senseless gag rule. But, it seems like a good idea to point out that all policies against reproductive freedom contribute to global warming.
Well, I think we have every reason to believe the supporters of the global gag rule in this thread are just lying their asses off. They openly support a law that denies funding that prevents AIDS, fistula, maternal mortality, and infant death. They’ve been told—in the post—that the law causes these things. We can only assume that Dana and sharon, now that they have full information, support AIDS, fistula, maternal mortality and infant death.
Well those women should have thought about that before they had sex, those sluts. Or so the usual argument goes.
The infants should have thought about it too. It’s their own fault for being born to someone so slutty.
Thanks for the heads up, Elizabeth. Brownback is one of my senators, but he’s as nutty as a Payday bar. I’m hoping he DOESN’T hear about this bill, because he’ll do all he can to keep the gag order in place.
I read the post.
I got to the bit that said “If it was true that we should ban every government program every nutjob has a moral issue with, we’d have no government programs”
I thought to myself, “red rag to a libertarian bull.”
I looked at the comment count:72.
I said to myself - a libertarian has hijacked this thread.
Bingo!
Why? Wouldn’t this result in more Africans?
I shall be closer to you than that bitch of a mother who bore you into this world
Getting back to Sharon
Because war and the military are legitimate uses of taxpayer funding, and the Constitution provides for having a standing army.Emphasis mine. Because this is really fucking important.
The constitution does not provide for havig a standing army. The constitiution
We have a standing army because every time around congress comes through with the bill to “raise and support” them. If next session they decided not to? Oops. No Army. No Navy, no Airforce, no Marines. No provision to require one from the constitution.forbidsdiscourages it And the means that it uses is Article 1 section 8:I swear all of the blockquotes worked in the preview. Sorry for the crappy format.
I really do think the gag rule got passed because people mistook it for being the Hyde amendment all over again. I think if people knew on what tremendously petty reasons, health care had been shut down, there would be an outcry. So all that can be done to raise awareness is for the good.
However, some of the trolls commenters here make it clear they’d rather see people die slowly, causing more poverty in 3rd world nations (because health care for the dying and care for orphans costs so much more than condoms). To me, that does look like a form of racism, to keep a nation in irrecoverable poverty.
And this is a serious topic, so I’ll try to remember to ask how many of us have alter-egos from Discworld next time there’s a music thread.
Well, it’s interesting, because the trolls, realizing that you can’t openly advocate for AIDS, etc. repeated the lie even on a post that corrected it. Because they know the truth will not win and they must lie. I’m eternally fascinated by anti-choicers who advocate endlessly for their supposed morality when they can’t even obey the Biblical injunction not to lie, which is (unlike abortion) one of the 10 commandments.
@#76 Carrot:
There’d be no Army, but the Navy is under a distinct clause of the Constitution, which does not have the two-year provision. The Marine Corps possibly falls under the Navy clause, in spite of having separate uniforms, ranks, and insignia. The Air Force might fall under the Army clause.
Well, it’s interesting, because the trolls, realizing that you can’t openly advocate for AIDS, etc. repeated the lie even on a post that corrected it. Because they know the truth will not win and they must lie.
I dunno, Amanda. My experience of arguing with Sharon is that she is just that stupid. Whether that means she’s stupidly misunderstanding what the global gag rule is about, or stupidly thinking she can lie about the facts and get away with it, is another matter.
To be fair, if you believe in blastocyst personhood, abortion is precisely equal to murder, and so it is forbidden by the Ten Commandments. (Except for those damned Amalekite fetuses. Dirty Amalekites!) Of course, all sorts of other wackiness follows from that, which generally isn’t adhered to, but if you ignore all that, it does fit into the Ten Commandments. I’m uncomfortable with labeling people “stupid”; it feels mean. At the same time, I’m trying to come up with another explanation with how sharon can be so astonishingly good at missing the point. The last time I saw someone clip the relevant parts of my quotes this much, I was talking to a creationist.Several people questioned my statistics, so here they are, with the source cited. These aren’t interpolations from which states receive more or fewer federal dollars, since such comparisons fail to take into account where federal money is spent.
From CNN:
Wordpress won’t format this as a table, so the numbers are:
Income range, percent of total electorate, Percent for Bush, Percent for Kerry:
Under $15,000 (8%) 36% 63%
$15,000-$30,000 (15%) 42% 57%
$30,000-$50,000 (22%) 49% 50%
$50,000-$75,000 (23%) 56% 43%
$75,000-$100,000 (14%) 55% 45%
$100,000-$150,000 (11%) 57% 42%
$150,000-$200,000 (4%) 58% 42%
More than $200,000 (3%) 63% 35%
It’s quite simple: the more you make, the more you pay in taxes, and the more you paid in taxes, the more probable it is that you voted Republican.
Amanda wrote:
Obviously you’ve missed the one about not committing murder, which is what abortion is.
But I simply gave you a way around the gag rule; such said absolutely nothing about whether the French or the Dutch or the British provide such funds. If you think that it is important that Americans provide such funds, well then you’ll have to live with the gag rule.
Most laughable to me is the notion that abortion constitutes health care to save lives. Abortion kills someone in every instance that it is used! A complete lack of health care has a lower mortality rate than abortion, as long as just one person survives.
Grendalkhan: I’m uncomfortable with labeling people “stupid”; it feels mean. At the same time, I’m trying to come up with another explanation with how sharon can be so astonishingly good at missing the point.
See, I agree with both sentences. But after a lengthy argument with Sharon last year I concluded that the most charitable explanation for Sharon’s apparent gross stupidity was that she was, in fact, just that stupid.
Dana: Obviously you’ve missed the one about not committing murder, which is what abortion is.
Still got both kidneys, Dana? Then you, by your own standards, are the murderer of the person who died today from acute renal failure because you did not donate one of your kidneys. In fact, you’re a murderer every day of your life until you give up one of your kidneys, and half your liver, and all the other organs of your body that you can spare. Because if you claim that abortion is murder, then it’s murder when you refuse the use of any organ to save a person’s life.
Unless, of course, your view is that it’s only murder when a person refuses the use of their uterus - an organ which you, conveniently, don’t have.
“To be fair, if you believe in blastocyst personhood, abortion is precisely equal to murder, and so it is forbidden by the Ten Commandments.”
Except that the same book you’d be citing for the “no murder” commandment doesn’t see a blastocyst or even a full-blown fetus as having personhood status. You’d be going to a source that doesn’t agree with you in trying to make that argument.
“Obviously you’ve missed the one about not committing murder, which is what abortion is.”
Come one, come all! Come see Murder, the Elastic Word!
Okay, here’s how it works, Dana:
Aid Agency provides maternal health care, child health care, vaccinations, contraception and disease prevention, and all sorts of other good things. And abortion, which some of us include as a good thing.
Because it provides abortions, Bush says “No money for you”
Aid Agency does not get enough in private donations to survive, so it closes the clininc.
By defunding any agency that provides abortion, Bush also defunds EVERY OTHER HEALTH CARE SERVICE provided by that agency.
That is the problem with the global gag rule. While most here would agree that abortion is a public good, that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about defunding all sorts of vital health care for women and children. Without this vital care, people DIE. That’s what this is about.
“Obviously you’ve missed the one about not committing murder, which is what abortion is.”
And I suppose somehow, killing thousands of people in a preemptive war against a country containing oil, which we want, but which otherwise forms no credible threat to us is just fine and dandy and certainly NOT murder in your eyes, eh Dana?
So all killing is killing, but only some killing is murder - and only people with special godly insight, like popes and presidents, can tell the difference.
To you and yours, eliminating a sperm/egg combination is always murder, but killing a living, breathing person - even a child - is not murder as long as somebody labels them “The Enemy”.
Wow, ethics is so much simpler than I ever guessed…
Dana:
It’s not your statistics we’re questioning, Dana, it’s your ability to interpret them in a way that isn’t belligerently anti-reality. I realize, of course, that A) you’re not personally thoughtful enough or well-versed enough in statistical analysis to realize that there are levels of interpretation beyond the purely superficial one that you keep flogging, and that B) you’re ideologically forbidden from asking why it might be the case that rich people tend to vote Republican and poor people don’t.
Obviously you missed the part about repeating the same old lies, which is what the “abortion is murder” claim is.
MikeEss:
Of course not. Brown people don’t count.
J wrote:
Odd, but I missed that part where the uterus is removed in the normal course of pregnancy.
Assuming a woman does nothing to interrupt the course of pregnancy, in nine months she will become unpregnant, very naturally, and still have her uterus.
Not the point, Dana. (Though, nice try.) You’re still attempting to ring-fence off the uterus as a special organ.
Dana, if you still have both kidneys, all of your liver, and are not a regular one-pint-a-month blood donor, you are a murderer. By your own sweet moral definition of murder: you have not surrendered your organs to keep someone else alive, so you have committed murder.
The magic pregnancy! Thank you, Dana. Yes, babies grow just like beanstalks in fairy tales. Semen goes in woman, then we have baby, just like magic beans go in ground, then we have beanstalk to castle. It would be just silly to think that a successful pregnancy is something women have to WORK at.
“Odd, but I missed that part where the uterus is removed in the normal course of pregnancy.”
Well, your liver does grow back, and the risk of death in live liver donation for the donor is relatively small. So, you can save someone’s life by donating half of your liver, and after a short period of discomfort, you have a normal liver again. If uterus donation should be mandatory, so should live liver donation.
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unpregnant. The latest euphemism for forced birth!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, so magic sperm in special egg implanted on wall of superuterus which grows into fetus which is then….
1) beamed out of the uterus using the anti-Heisenberg principle Star Trek contraption?
2) willed out of the woman’s body by Khalil Gibran. Or Tony Perkins.
3) suddenly removed from the uterus without explanation and found in the arms of David Copperfield, or David Blaine. (Whoever’s available.)
4) delivered in a painless, instantaneous birth with no risk to the mother’s life by the great Dr. Cliff Huxtable.
There’d be no Army, but the Navy is under a distinct clause of the Constitution, which does not have the two-year provision. The Marine Corps possibly falls under the Navy clause, in spite of having separate uniforms, ranks, and insignia. The Air Force might fall under the Army clause.
Thanks. I knew the other mostly offhand, but my knowledge of the constitution isn’t as comprehensive as I’d like it to be.
It’s quite simple: the more you make, the more you pay in taxes, and the more you paid in taxes, the more probable it is that you voted Republican.
Pardon me, Dana, but quoting income ranges does not show much about the taxes paid.
More importantly, it does not say anything at all about net transfers of money. I realise wingnuts are fixated on black single mums whenever the term “welfare” is mentioned, but government contractors are also welfare queens. Defense contractors suck off the government teat. Haliburton is a welfare queen. And agricultural subsidies cost more than social security.
The simple fact is that the Red States tend to get more government funding than they contribute in taxes. If the US split, the Red and Blue States ceding from each other, the Blue States would be wealthier and the Red States poorer.
The current political economy depends on liberals subsidising conservatives.
I suspect Dana would be happier if we returned to the days where there were minimum property requirements for voting. It’s good if billionaires want government to give them more profits! Bad if poor people want medicine! Welfare for corporations only!
Heh. I have had the fun experience of being both a normal person, who pays normal taxes, and being a person who pays “lots more in taxes” (and the reason for that being the Republican I was married to). THEORETICALLY (and I must emphasize that) and SUPPOSEDLY folks in those income tax brackets are paying more taxes. Trust me. They don’t. They pay about the same amount of taxes, dollar for dollar, that I paid when I was in that Kerry-votin’ tax bracket, and that same amount causes them a hell of a lot less pain proportionately. Reality check. Hello.