Restrictions on New AIDS Funding

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Abortion Politics Could Limit Bush AIDS Plan Scope
Thu February 20, 2003 05:28 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The Bush administration is considering a plan that would prohibit AIDS funding to foreign non-government organizations (NGOs) that do not separate their HIV/AIDS programs from family planning services that include abortion counseling or procedures, according to a leaked State Department memorandum.
Under the proposed plan, only foreign NGOs that do not offer abortion services or those that offer separate abortion services would be eligible for new AIDS funds recently proposed by the Bush administration, according to a letter dated February 11, 2003.

This policy is problematic because the vast majority of organizations in Africa and elsewhere have integrated services, the Global AIDS Alliance (GAA), a non-partisan advocacy group, said in a statement Wednesday. Combining services is more cost-effective than maintaining separate services and better serves the needs of women, the group notes.

According to the GAA statement, this is the first time that the "Mexico City Policy" restrictions have been applied to HIV/AIDS programs.

The Mexico City Policy bars US funding of international groups that use non-US funds to perform or advocate for abortion, and has typically been used when it comes to funding for international family planning organizations.

The policy, so named because President Ronald Reagan announced it during a United Nations population conference in Mexico City in 1984, was in effect until 1993, when President Bill Clinton revoked it on his second full day in office. It was briefly in effect again in 1999 after Clinton and the Republican Congress fought over paying back dues to the UN, then fully restored by President Bush on the first business day of his presidency in January.

"It is ludicrous to expect that organizations in Africa can or should establish separate HIV/AIDS programs in order to receive US funds," Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the GAA, said. "These restrictions will hamper the rapid expansion of global AIDS programs," he added.

"From a public health perspective, the best approach is to fully integrate AIDS programs into family planning programs, not separate them," Zeitz said. "The restrictions represent a Washington-imposed mandate that's unrealistic and costly in the African context."

When contacted by Reuters Health, no one from the State Department was available for comment.
 
My God. Nothing that man does surprises me anymore. I don't think I can survive another two years of the moral majority in power.

There had to be some twist to his giving out the money. Always a payoff to his big money contributors.
 
this really pisses me off. if he's doing this due to his pro-life policy, WHY DOESN'T HE WANT TO SAVE LIVES?!

what a joke. :down:
 
In my opinion, it has more to do with the fact that he has an election coming two years from now. His base, as proven by his actions after McCain won the New Hampshire primary is clearly with the right. I am not in any way saying that President Bush wanted to be that far right, I do believe he wanted to be a more liberal republican, but he was forced in that direction, and wound up courting that side of the party.

Now, he has to make certain that he pleases that side of the party and his decisions have to be made and be decisions consistent with the platform. I am going to read it tomorrow to see what it says in there.

I am very disgusted with the whole thing. I am proud that he wants to do something to help. I am disgusted that this may very well get in the way of the distribution of the money. He may as well contact religious organizations to use it in Africa. I am not certain based on what I have read if there are organizations that would qualify for the money.

Sherry...Boston Anne...Any input?
 
Did anyone really swallow whole the inference that they would actually be buying a few billion dollars worth of LIFE SAVING MEDICATION to ship over there?

Like, cmon now!

And like I said before, its a paltry sum, and it'll probably never get where it should.

Pure politics and reelection bullshit promises.

:down:
 
Just think, with every passing day more die...no bloodshed on their head, nope, no sirree..

"...a man who has lost faith in the peacemakers of the West...while they argue.." etc etc

Silver and Gold, live

Sure we live in different times. Now its called economic apartheid.
 


Sherry...Boston Anne...Any input? [/B]


Absolutely. :D

I am heartily pro-life (which is why I support debt relief. It saves lives.) I think that Bush is making the mistake so many Westerners make when imposing moral judgements on Africa (or other HIPCs.) He's assuming that they have the same amount of choice in the matter that we do. (Yes, yes, we always have choices no matter what, but hear me out.) This is a culture that usually won't even USE the word sex much. It's taboo. A woman is supposed to be able to make some sort of informed choice on this matter? (This could be exploited by both "camps", really.) I think the situation there is a lot more complex than he is imagining, and I find it arrogant that he'd try to impose his morality on them at the risk of lives.

I also wonder if this is a gimmick to get out of having to cough up the dough.

Finally, I've been researching this and most of these villages have, if they are really lucky, 3 doctors per 1,000 people. Thus the idea of abortions in Africa really scares me. We're not talking about ideal medical conditions, to say the least.

And once again, I can only repeat what I've been saying since I first posted my letter to Paul O'Neill last July. If you care enough to discuss this hear, get your letter in the mail to tell Bush to follow THRU on this. Get it in the mail now! (If you'd like a copy of the one I posted, its in the link in my sig...)

And to answer your question, Dreadsox, there are a mix of NGOs and churches and other religious organizations and gov't aid agencies. He could insist that religioius ones get it all, I guess. Seems pretty limiting for such a huge pandemic!

SD
 
Last edited:
I neither think he is assuming that they have the same amount of choice in the matter that we do.

I think it adds to the list of crimes that Bush has commited and continues to commit. I am not talking of crimes for which you can be held responsible, because no court in the world would accuse Bush of spending the money in the way he wants to - after all, he?s the elected President. But in my personal opinion it is a crime to let people die when you could save them from illness and death. Bush doesn?t bat an eye. What a cruel person.

I appreciate your talent for diplomacy, Sherry Darling :up:

And to everyone: Go ahead, send a letter to the white house! Invest five minutes of your time, its worth it.
 
This makes me mad as hell. The U.S. government shouldn't be posturing as the Big Bad Moral Cop. I'm even Catholic, which doesn't make me a big fan of abortion. But I don't like this :censored:.
 
I am enraged by this. I don't care if you're a conservative republican, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that blocking this money this way is going to keep us from saving millions of people

Excuse me while I go throw up.
and write a letter.
 
Bush is a born-again religious fanatic, and, once again, proves why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to value secularism.

If you cannot separate your religious beliefs from your professional career, then you have a problem.

Melon
 
melon said:
Bush is a born-again religious fanatic, and, once again, proves why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to value secularism.

If you cannot separate your religious beliefs from your professional career, then you have a problem.

Melon


I agree. :madspit: :mad: :censored: :censored:
 
melon said:
Bush is a born-again religious fanatic, and, once again, proves why our Founding Fathers had the foresight to value secularism.

If you cannot separate your religious beliefs from your professional career, then you have a problem.

Melon

Melon,

My faith is the cornerstone of my life. It's the reason I work with Jubilee. It's the reason I teach-- to have a career that is of service to others. It's behind, around and underneath every decision I make. Faith/religion isn't the problem. Pride, judgement and ignorance (in this case, Bush's of the reality of Africa's struggles), and probably politics too in this case, are.

Thanks for listening. :D

SD
 
As I suspected, there was something in the Republican PLatform 2000. He is obligated I would think to live by the platform of his party.


UNHAPPY READING:

The United Nations

International organizations can serve the cause of peace, but they can never serve as a substitute for, or exercise a veto over, principled American leadership. The United Nations was not designed to summon or lead armies in the field and, as a matter of U.S. sovereignty, American troops must never serve under United Nations command. Nor will they be subject to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court. The United Nations can provide a valuable forum for nations to peacefully resolve their differences, and it can help monitor international agreements and organize international humanitarian assistance. The United States will pay a fair, not disproportionate, share of dues to the United Nations once it has reformed its management and taken steps to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. All funds that the U.S. contributes for operations, conferences, and peacekeeping should count against these dues.

The next Republican administration will use its diplomatic influence to put an end to a pattern of discrimination that persists at the United Nations in denying committee assignments to Israel. It will do the likewise at the International Red Cross which refuses to accredit the symbol of Magen David Adom, Israel's equivalent of the Red Cross. Moreover, Republicans oppose the ideological campaign against participation by the Vatican in U.N. conferences and other activities. The United Nations was created to benefit all peoples and nations, not to promote a radical agenda of social engineering. Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed into a context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we will protect the rights of families in international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion. This approach to foreign assistance will unify people, respect their diverse beliefs, and uphold basic human rights. It will enable us, in cooperation with other free societies around the world, to more effectively oppose religious persecution and the sex trafficking that ruins the lives of women and children.
 
Sherry Darling said:


Melon,

My faith is the cornerstone of my life. It's the reason I work with Jubilee. It's the reason I teach-- to have a career that is of service to others. It's behind, around and underneath every decision I make. Faith/religion isn't the problem. Pride, judgement and ignorance (in this case, Bush's of the reality of Africa's struggles), and probably politics too in this case, are.

Thanks for listening. :D

SD

Very well put, Sherry. As a practicing Catholic I can relate to this. Religion per se is not the problem here. It's as you say, bad judgment, ignorance of the severity of the crisis in Africa and probably politics. We can't afford to screw up like this.
 
Last edited:
gabrielvox said:


Would that have been on the call you placed about his involvement in the peace rally?

:evil:

:lol:
Another issue, did Bono REALLY march in a Peace Rally or is this mere speculation and fantasy by some mis-guided, dreamy youth here?:angry:

I challenge you to-

At the very least please post a link or pic showing this,
or
please
pipe
down..

thank u-
Diamond
Bruno.:larry:
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

Another issue, did Bono REALLY march in a Peace Rally or is this mere speculation and fantasy by some mis-guided, dreamy youth here?:angry:

I challenge you to-


I second this motion. I want more than a picture though. For all we know, the marchers went by his house, and he came out to say hello to someone. Written proof with QUOTES will be fine!

PEACE
 
Dreadsox said:


I second this motion. I want more than a picture though. For all we know, the marchers went by his house, and he came out to say hello to someone. Written proof with QUOTES will be fine!

PEACE

I am reading the Irish Voice right now...there are 4 separate stories about the Dublin peace march. There was not a single word about Bono being in atttendance.

The usual suspects were there, Christy Moore sang, Michael D. Higgins gave a passionate speach about the children of Iraq who would die as a result of the war, and Sinn Fein and the Socialist Workers Party brought out supporters en masse.

The Irish Voice picks up every tidbit there is on Bono and I'm pretty sure that if he was there, it would have been reported.

The only mention of him in this issue is about the Nobel Prize nom.
 
RE:Irish Voice..not exactly totally up to date, their last post was 2 days ago, and their Bono Nobel announcement was I think 2 days later than most other outlets. Also, they don't have half the Bono news that other outlets do. In fact very little about Bono.

I have it on good faith that he quite possibly was there, from someone who should know. I don't have pictures and I don't have quotes. Either you believe me or you don't, but those who know me know I don't intentionally lie about anything.

"dreamy mis-guided youth"...you crack me up Diamond..

BTW...isn't this thread about AIDS???

Or did you not have a comment on the Bush administration's despicable proposal Diamond?
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:

UNHAPPY READING:

The United Nations

The United States will pay a fair, not disproportionate, share of dues to the United Nations once it has reformed its management and taken steps to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

Now this nearly sounds as bad as the IMF/ World Bank with their "good governance before debt-reduction and aid" policies.

Regarding that Kofi Annan pushed through UN reforms (also between 2000 and 2003) but the US still owes lots of money to the UN. Have they paid their 2002 budget already?
 
Back
Top Bottom