?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More from Ms.

Every time I try to read an issue of this magazine in one sitting, my brain threatens to explode. With righteous indigation, sure, but also with inspiration. At any rate, pass this message on.

"Campaign founders, Lois Abraham, a lawyer from New Mexico, and Jane Roberts, a retired French teacher and tennis coach from California, had never met, but they shared the same indignant reaction when the United States Administration withheld $34 million that Congress had appropriated for UNFPA."

"The United States is the only country ever to deny funding to UNFPA for non-budgetary reasons. In July 2002, the U.S. Administration announced its decision to withhold $34 million - that had previously been appropriated by Congress to UNFPA - based on false claims that the Fund supports coercive abortion in China. The decision was taken despite recommendations made by a State Department fact-finding team to release the funds."


http://www.unfpa.org/support/friends/34million.htm

Comments

( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
swartzdk
Jun. 17th, 2003 05:15 am (UTC)
False??
Nothing false here. In China if you get pregnant the second time you will be forced to have an abortion and the UN supports this as a method of population control. Who exactly is the UN to demand our tax dollars.
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 05:31 am (UTC)
You don't have to contribute if you don't want to. This goes for anyone else who wants to bash my politics via LJ. Conservatives can believe their propaganda, and I'll believe mine.
oontzgrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 07:35 am (UTC)
Instead of believing the propaganda of either side, why not read up on all sides of an issue and make a desison based on what seems most reasonable and accurate, regardless of which side of the political fence it is on?

I don't know enough about this issue, but I do know that I don't support mandatory abortions, so if any tax money is going to that, I would have a problem.
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 02:32 pm (UTC)
I used the word "propaganda" on both sides because at this point I've read enough so that it seems as though any news source, any science written for the layman to understand, and especially anything involving statistics, can be manipulated to sound like a polemic. I don't know who to trust anymore.

The allegations that the money was to support "mandatory" abortions is higly spurious from what I have read. The fact that that money was doing mostly other important medical work and helping get sex education and knowledge about birth control out there into a world that doesn't have it was what really burned my cookies. This is what happens when you let fundies run the country, they exert their morality in nefarious ways.

That's just my opinion, I recommend as you have that others read up on it and get their own.
oontzgrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 02:56 pm (UTC)
Right on. It sounds as though you have done some research and formed an opinion based on that. So why sell yourself short by calling either side of it propaganda? propaganda is vague information gathered in such a way to get an emotional response. If you have opinions based on research then don't lump it in with something that will downplay how you feel.
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 05:34 am (UTC)
P.S. I love you dad, but at some point know I'm not going to stop being a bleeding heart liberal.
swartzdk
Jun. 17th, 2003 06:28 am (UTC)
Liberal
I have no problem at all with your being a Liberal. Just don't do it with my tax dollars.
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 02:37 pm (UTC)
You have to at least respect that I feel this way, and that I think tax dollars should go where I think they should go.

Also, if you don't want your tx dollars helping other people, then you could always protest by not paying them.
cheetahmaster
Jun. 17th, 2003 04:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Liberal
Heh, that's the beauty of democracy, no one is happy with the whole thing.
rekoil
Jun. 17th, 2003 06:00 am (UTC)
Re: False??
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/07/23/unfpa/index_np.html

"The [State Department] report is unequivocal in dismissing the allegations. 'We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC,' it says. 'We therefore recommend that ... [the] $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA.'"
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 02:35 pm (UTC)
Thank you for posting that.
necrocannibal
Jun. 17th, 2003 09:23 pm (UTC)
Enabling people who cannot take care of children to not have them is a wise financial decision. Slowing the progress of AIDS is not only a good financial decision, it is an issue of survival.

I'm not clear on what happened in China, but it does not make sense to give up on the idea for the rest of the world.

necrocannibal
Jun. 17th, 2003 09:39 pm (UTC)
I understand China will heavily penalize families who have a second child, and that they prefer to abort female babies because of cultural biases; that's pretty horrifying.

I honestly don't know how far the UN is going with that. Are they supporting it by not talking about it? I doubt that they are taking people away for abortions. My Cuban and Syrian human rights council would never allow that!
snidegrrl
Jun. 17th, 2003 11:59 pm (UTC)
I honestly don't know how far the UN is going with that.

That's why they sent the State Department in to find out, and the answer was, the UN isn't having anything to do with it. The Ms. article goes into a little more detail about how Bush got his evidence and why it's so spurious. Let's put it this way, the translators were very carefully chosen.
snidegrrl
Jun. 18th, 2003 12:00 am (UTC)
P.S. If you thought you might read the magazine, I would send you a subscription post-haste.
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )