 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - President Bush (news - web sites) urged Congress to pass a $15 billion overseas AIDS (news - web sites) relief package Tuesday, even as conservative groups continued to press for changes emphasizing sexual abstinence in the initiative.
The President made a push for approval of a five-year, $15 billion authorization measure that recommends aid directed toward 14 African and Caribbean countries devastated by the HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS epidemic. The bill is scheduled for a vote in the U.S. House later this week.
Bush said that Congress should approve the bill, even though it contains key measures that the White House opposed during committee debates.
"Time is not on our side. So I ask Congress to move forward with the speed and seriousness that this crisis requires," said Bush, who noted earlier that 30 million people in Africa are already infected with HIV.
Administration health officials have estimated that the initiative, which concentrates on the so-called "ABC" approach to HIV/AIDS relief -- promoting abstinence, being faithful, and using condoms -- could prevent up to 7 million new infections.
Bush has asked Congress to spend $2 billion on the package in 2004, though the bill scheduled for a House vote this week contains $1 billion more than that request. The White House also initially fought a provision that allows up to $1 billion in spending on the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, preferring instead $200 million per year in contributions.
AIDS groups praised the relief package, though some warned that Congress must still appropriate money later this year to fulfill the President's intentions on HIV/AIDS.
"Similar bills have been ignored in the past, even when approved by the full House," warned Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance.
The White House has also faced pressure from conservative groups who want U.S. efforts to more strongly emphasize abstinence from sexual behavior. The bill's "ABC" approach, used in Uganda to lower HIV rates during the 1990's, does not explicitly favor abstinence over monogamy or condom use.
"As written, the bill guarantees failure because it does not emphasize abstinence," said Tom Minnery, vice president for public policy at Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based conservative group.
Some groups have also called for an extension of a Bush executive order that bars U.S. aid money from any group that promotes or provides abortions. A draft proposal last year would have extended the order to AIDS groups, and Congress and the White House have so far resisted efforts to put the policy, called the "Mexico City" provision, into the bill.
The Mexico City Policy bars U.S. funding of international groups that use non-U.S. funds to perform or advocate for abortion. It has traditionally been used when it comes to funding for international family planning organizations.
"We're not expanding the Mexico City policy to cover this initiative," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) told reporters.
Conservative House members are widely expected to offer amendments to the bill during debate later this week, possibly including limits on money for the Global Fund and language that allows groups actively opposed to condom distribution to still receive U.S. aid money.
"I believe the White House will be behind those efforts to improve the bill," Minnery said.
The package remains in flux in the Senate, where talks between Republicans and Democrats broke down weeks ago over issues including U.S. contributions to the Global Fund.
Democrats, including Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. blamed the White House for refusing to compromise on its desire to limit Fund contributions to $200 million per year.
A spokesman for committee Chair Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said that Republican and Democrats are unlikely to agree on overall spending levels or on fund contributions in time for a scheduled Foreign Relations Committee vote in mid May.
"That's still something that may be finally resolved in the markup," he said.
********
Absolutely NOT! Why should I have to pay for backwards ass irresponsible attitudes about sex in much of Africa? Or, for that matter, why should I have to pay for other people's medical bills? The whole concept of this is sickening.
I'm gonna have to requote the passage once here:
quote:
"As written, the bill guarantees failure because it does not emphasize abstinence," said Tom Minnery, vice president for public policy at Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based conservative group. |
I fully agree. If people wouldn't have sex with literally everyone, then AIDs would not be such a big problem. You can argue all you want about which method of preventing AIDs is more effective - condoms, pills, etc., - but I can argue that abstinence is the MOST effective at preventing sexually transmitted AIDs.
Stop having casual sex = stop getting AIDs. By and large, I would think this is true.
And no, I'm not one of those fundies who insists that one should never have sex before marriage, so don't start that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
That's not what I said and you know it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
BeBro,
quote:
I donīt say you said it (or even meant it without saying it) But I donīt think your statements make much more sense like that one by me. |
Which statements in particular? Don't use strawmen - quote my actual position and critique, not the position you WISH I took.
Fez,
quote:
According to David Floyd logic, have the US nuke all of Africa immediately. Problem solved. |
Gee, that sounds like a solution I'd support based upon my posting history and political ideology. Dumbass.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Abstinence-only education |
I'm not saying that condoms are bad to use. I'm saying that the most effective way to prevent sexually transmitted AIDs is to avoid casual sex. This is so obvious it shouldn't even be up for debate.
quote:
but at least some legitimately suffering people will benefit from US generousity. |
Yes, I just LOVE how the Republicrats are so generous with my money. Actually, I've got a better solution. Let's get a bill in place where Congress sets up a voluntary donation fund, which Congressmen promise to match out of their own pockets, then send the whole damn thing to Africa or Thailand or wherever they want to combat AIDs. All nice and voluntary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
If push comes to shove, I would help you pay for your liver transplant if when you needed it. |
I'm actually very generous and free with my money. I buy stuff for people all the time. My problem comes when someone says I HAVE to. If I told you that you HAD to help pay for my liver transplant, which I needed because *I* had a drinking problem for 30 years, wouldn't you object?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
Fez,
You aren't even worth responding to. Try a real argument and then we'll talk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Yes I do. I am trying to make a point to Floyd. |
Try harder.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
I think everyone has a right to healthcare, |
Really? So you believe healthcare is a natural right, or, more likely based upon your politics, a socially constructed right? If you believe it's a natural right, you're gonna have to try and justify it, because any credible natural rights argument centers around three rights - life, liberty, and property. You can say healthcare is part of the right to life, but you're missing the point in that one right can't conflict with another. That is, the right to life can't be at the expense of my property rights. Now, you say, isn't the reverse true? Of course it is. But this has nothing to do with that.
Death is natural. You dying does not involve me in any way. I didn't cause it. I might have the power to prevent your death by giving you something, but if I don't give it to you I still didn't cause your death. Therefore, you can't have a natural claim on my property to prevent your death, unless, of course, I caused your death.
Now, on the other hand, if you believe the right to healthcare is socially constructed. Then any society without public healthcare hasn't constructed that right, therefore it doesn't exist. The US doesn't have public healthcare, nor do many other nations, so why would you apply your socially constructed rights to other societies which don't want to construct such a thing?
Take your pick 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2003 05:33
|