Hyde Bill - Emasculated - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-01-2003, 03:35 PM   #1
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Hyde Bill - Emasculated

The Hyde - Lantos bill that came out a bipartisan committee has been emasculated by the Smith and Pitt amendments.

The Smith Amendment provides funding to faith-based groups that can teach people that condoms do not work. I'm all for faith-based funding, but they should not be allowed to lie and say condoms don't work.

The Pitt Amendment guarantees 33% of funding for abstinence prevention. I think abstinence is a great thing, but funding should be used for the Ugandan ABC approach. This guarantees funding for groups that only provide abstinence teachings and does not provide for married people's protection fron the spread of AIDS. The largest growing group is married women. This also will not prevent the spread to their unborn children.

Abstinence doesn't work in the US, and it won't work without other methods of prevention in the developing world.

We are choosing morality over people's lives and I'm ashamed of my government.

edited to say:

I knew the money would not come without strings.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:40 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Henry Hyde is a big sack of hypocritical you know what.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:55 PM   #3
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 08:38 AM
I don't think its Hyde's fault -- these are just provisions that have been tacked on by other people.

someone please refresh by poli sci memory -- its all or nothing right? not choose our parts?
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:06 PM   #4
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Hyde endorsed both Amendments, and Lantos tried to get them defeated.

I'm very glad the bill passed as something is better than nothing, but I'm very disappointed that they are endorsing a political and moral agenda over helping people in the most effective way.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:20 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Scarletwine,

thanks for the additional information.

i was going to say maybe I jumped too soon.




hyde is a hypocrite,

he did not practice abstinence

when he was a habitual adulterer.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:44 PM   #6
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Cspan had a caller that mentioned that fact LOL.

Your right, what a hypocrite.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 06:21 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:38 PM
I knew something like this would happen. Grrrrrrrrr.......
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 09:41 AM   #8
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 09:38 AM

Here's an article about this from this morning for you all.

I have to add that I'm please so far with the bill, at least like 80%. I'm surprised and dissapointed by the reactions posted here. This is HUGE guys. Let's take Bono's advice and not play politics with it. That will kill this bill, which will kill tens of thousands of more Africans. Absitnence DOES work, and it should be included. On what evidence do you based your assertion that it doesn't, SW? I shoud point out there that this is a very important message for African women who often don't feel like they have the right to say no, as I saw when I lived there. Also, I'm not sure your facts are right. It *caps* the abstinence spending at 33%, too much for the taste of some, too little for others.

Birth control and condomns work too (albeit not 100%), and they should be included as well. Again, let's not play politics. For example, of course Hyde is a hypocrite. But they are all to a point...LOL...so if they vote right, I frankly don't care.

I would like to see retroviruals included (its not mentioned here either way, so I can't tell). And I want the money to be channeled mostly thru international places--we'll see what ends up happening.



Anyway, my thoughs. Here's the article. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in appropriations.

SD


By Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 2, 2003; Page A01


The House yesterday approved a $15 billion program to combat AIDS in Africa, giving it a more conservative cast by requiring health groups trying to curb the spread of the disease to place special emphasis on abstinence from extramarital sex, as opposed to the use of condoms.

The bill, which now moves to the Senate, would triple U.S. expenditures over the next five years to fight the disease's spread and to treat those already infected. Most of the money would go to 14 hard-hit African nations to boost prevention efforts, medical treatments and assistance for children orphaned by the disease.

The House vote, 375 to 41, represented a swift legislative victory for President Bush, who in January surprised many by announcing the global AIDS initiative. It also marked a rare display of unity in the House, which has been deeply divided over many domestic and foreign policies.

AIDS experts in the United States and abroad have argued for years that Washington should spend far more money to battle the pandemic. Some advocates, however, were sobered by yesterday's House amendments limiting the money's use.

One narrowly approved provision requires that at least a third of the program's AIDS-prevention funds be spent to promote sexual abstinence, a strategy many conservatives prefer to the distribution of condoms. Another amendment, approved by voice vote, would permit religious groups subsidized under the plan to reject strategies they consider objectionable.

In recent days, the White House worked energetically to build support for those two provisions, even though aides had previously indicated the president would sign the bill with or without them. One administration official said Bush had told congressional leaders on Wednesday that he would "press hard for the abstinence-priority language." Administration lobbyists, some of whom stood outside the House chamber during yesterday's debate, phoned undecided lawmakers to urge them to back the amendments.

Some conservatives said yesterday that the amendments had appeared unlikely to prevail until the White House stepped up its support. Bush's backing, they said, may help the provisions survive the negotiations with the less conservative Senate.

Bush praised the House's action as "an important step toward providing critically needed treatment and care." He called on the Senate to quickly follow suit to "give the hope of life to millions of people in the world's most afflicted countries."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may take up similar legislation as early as next week. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who co-wrote an AIDS bill for Africa in the previous Congress, said he plans to take the $15 billion legislation to the floor this month.

Some Senate Democrats, however, expressed concern about the abstinence language. Tony Wyche, spokesman for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said the senator "believes that the legislation needs to provide programs with the type of flexibility that is going to be effective on the ground."

The House bill, written by International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) and the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), would provide $3 billion a year from 2004 to 2008. The money would be spent on prevention efforts, medical treatment, palliative care and support for children whose parents have died of AIDS. Depending on how much is appropriated, the United States would devote $165 million to $200 million to the promotion of abstinence.

The bill identifies several ways that Africa-based workers, international organizations and faith-based groups can prevent the spread of AIDS, including counseling abstinence before marriage, providing condoms to prostitutes, offering AIDS tests and urging men to be more sexually responsible, to participate in child rearing and to respect women's rights.

Lantos described the $15 billion commitment as "an enormous sum by any measure. . . . It is a global human challenge that requires a global humanitarian response, led by the United States."

GOP lawmakers, many of whom have opposed increases in federal spending for other purposes, were equally enthusiastic about the program. "It will save lives," Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) said.

But some House members sparred over the extent to which prevention strategies should rely on sexual abstinence. Condom distribution is a key part of international AIDS programs now subsidized by the United States.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) described yesterday's bill as "a moral crusade," saying that abstinence "works, and we can't let the fog of politics obscure that fact."

Opponents, however, said this is an unrealistic requirement that could undermine efforts to curb the disease's spread.

The original legislation endorsed a model in which AIDS workers would promote abstinence, faithfulness and, when necessary, condom use.

"We do not have time to play Russian roulette with millions of lives," Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said.

The Hyde-Lantos bill was largely modeled on the president's plan, though it contains differences. It would channel $5 billion through an international AIDS fund created two years ago, whereas Bush recommended $1 billion. And it would cap the U.S. contribution to any given project at 33 percent of the total cost.

Some lawmakers noted that Congress will fall short of its goals unless Bush and the Republican leadership push for additional funding during the appropriations process.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), a senior appropriator, said Bush has asked for $1.7 billion in his budget this year to fight AIDS, compared with the $3 billion outlined in the bill.

Conservative organizations that had opposed the bill's original version were delighted by the amendments emphasizing abstinence and deferring to the strategies preferred by religious groups.

"They make an otherwise distasteful bill palatable," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.

"When social marketing of condoms has been used as the first line of defense, HIV rates have been rising," said Michael Schwartz, vice president for government relations at Concerned Women for America.

On the other hand, Nils Daulaire, president of the Global Health Council, said the requirement that no more than a third of prevention funds be spent to promote abstinence is a "Washington-centric" idea that would impose "an enormous amount of bureaucracy and paperwork for people who should be out there doing the work."

Nevertheless, Daulaire called the House's vote "remarkable," saying, "[T]he United States is really going to take the leadership in responding to AIDS around the world."


2003 The Washington Post Company
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 10:40 AM   #9
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:38 AM
I'm also very pleased it passed and I know it is huge, I called my Rep several times over the last week. I'm just sorry partisanship came out in the amendments, I was hoping the bill would pass as it came out of committee.

"One narrowly approved provision requires that at LEAST A THIRD of the program's AIDS-prevention funds be spent to promote sexual abstinence, a strategy many conservatives prefer to the distribution of condoms. Another amendment, approved by voice vote, would permit religious groups subsidized under the plan to reject strategies they consider objectionable."

I do think abstinence is an important part of fighting the pandemic, especially in impowering women, but still dislike the
mandates for money for abstinence programs, especially where other programs are not available.

I sincerely hope it can now go through the Senate also.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 11:09 AM   #10
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:

I do think abstinence is an important part of fighting the pandemic, especially in impowering women, but still dislike the
mandates for money for abstinence programs, especially where other programs are not available.

I sincerely hope it can now go through the Senate also. [/B]
From what Jubilee knows, the Senate shouldn't be much of a problem. I agree, other programs should be available, definitely. Abstinance is ONE vital part of this effort.

I'll try to see if I can find a copy of the bill itself. If anyone else wants to look, try http://www.house.gov and we can see exactly what is and is not a part of this.

Interesting and important discussion, all, thank you!

sd

PS you rule for calling your Rep so persistently. Bono's not the only pest
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 11:46 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Sherry, I'm really pleased this passed. Of course Bono is right when it comes to playing politics with this stuff. It's not cool. After all, my Republican Congressman, Spencer Bachus has been supporting Bono's work for years. I think he's a good guy even if I don't always agree with him. I also wrote my Senators asking them for their votes. I don't think Bono would be saying that this is great if it weren't. As much as I'm not crazy about the compromises they probably helped the bill pass. We've got to be pragmatic about this, just like Bono is. I've written some fairly loony notes the past three days because I've been sick.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 11:59 AM   #12
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
I've written some fairly loony notes the past three days because I've been sick
Aw, that SUCKS. Hope you feel better girl!

I don't think your concerns were looney--this money has got to be well spent. I agree with that, definitely. But I agree with you too that some compromise might just have to happen.

Feel better!

BTW, all, I think I've foundthe bill. Follow this link.

HR 1298...is this the one?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1087qGBZs::

SD
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com