Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of ridiculous things were thrown around in this thread, but interestingly, they never came back to respond to those of us who questioned them on their one-liners.
I saw this in depth article over at think progress. Another case of the fox guarding the henhouse. There's a link connected to the article wherein you can voice your protest. The day after bush took office he reinstated the Mexico City Policy. I remember being so enraged. How can contraception be considered a "culture of death" if there's no conception? Here's a few clips:
...Orr, who is currently directing HHS child welfare programs, was touted by the administration as “highly qualified.â€
.... served as senior director for marriage and family care at the conservative Family Research Council and was an adjunct professor at Pat Robertson’s Regent University – In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees†to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,†said Orr.
– At the 2001 Conservative Political Action Conference, Orr cheered Bush’s endorsement of Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,†which required NGOs receiving federal funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.†Orr said that it was proof Bush was pro-life “in his heart.â€
– In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,†said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.â€
– Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.†In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.â€
A the office of family planning carries tremendous importance. Orr will “oversee HHS’s $283 million reproductive-health program, a $30 million program that encourages abstinence among teenagers, and HHS’s Office of Population Affairs, which funds birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling, and screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.â€
Last year, President Bush appointed Eric Keroack to oversee the office. Keroack had previously worked for a Christian pregnancy counseling group that opposes contraception. He stepped down in March over ethical problems.
....
Henry Waxman's statement:
This appointment is absurd. Dr. Orr’s support of unproven abstinence-only programs would in itself raise flags about her commitment to comprehensive family planning for low-income girls and women. But in 2000, Dr. Orr said that requiring insurers to cover family planning supplies and services — a policy that promotes access to contraception in many states and the federal employee health program — is “about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.†This leaves little doubt about where she has stood on contraception access. […]
...— ideology firmly holds the reins over reproductive health in this White House. But this lack of commitment to comprehensive reproductive health, combined with cramped budgets, is an insult and a disservice to the millions of low-income people who rely on Title X for family planning and preventive health services.
I read the whole thing. I didn't find anything that made her unfit for the job.
I can understand that the pro-abortion crowd would prefer to have one of
their own in the job.
It's all politics as usual. Bush is not concerned with providing birth control or any other services to anybody. He is not concerned with the government running efficiently either. (Have we forgotten about FEMA?). What Bush does is appoint people who are loyal to him. Then, these people get to "manage" federal funds. They syphon off funds to their cronies. Never mind what's good for the country--that has never been the point, in my opinion. That is why, if you notice, they say one thing, then do another.
Ms. Orr is going to oversee 238 million dollars of taxpayers money. She doesn't believe in birth control. So, what she's going to do is send as much as she can of that money to "her people": the have as many children as possible, but then you're on your own crowd.
It's an election year. Bush and his GOP, who have disappointed many conservatives, get to score a few points with the religious right. Groups like Dobson's get a few million dollars of our money for basically telling people to either not have sex or have as many children as possible once you're married, of course. For some reason, they obsess about people having sex.
Basically, groups like Dobson's do a lot of preaching on the taxpayer's dime. They don't do much otherwise, but they get paid just the same. In return, Dobson and his people will annoint the next GOP candidate with the "he's a good Christian man" mantra and the same people who get taken for granted every time by the GOP, will again vote for the GOP.
It's all about the money and not too surprising, really.
The article didn't make it clear, is she against birth control or just the tax payers paying for it?
I don't especially care for my taxes paying for it either.
Would you rather pay a lot more to raise a kid that's unwanted. I'd much rather pay for birth control than unwanted kids and social problems. It's a much cheaper cost.
I read the whole thing. I didn't find anything that made her unfit for the job.
I can understand that the pro-abortion crowd would prefer to have one of
their own in the job.
Try the correct phrase, pro-choice. I don't want to put anyone in any position they don't want to be in ... I want them to be able to choose.
But you knew that.
Just like you know that it's anti-choice, not pro-life; that's those of you who believe in the right to life until birth.
This is why I'm not a Republican. Their base is so out-of-step with the majority of Americans, if this stuff ever actually sank into peoples heads, they'd never vote Republican again.
Yeah, "Democrats are *******". Well, I guess that's better than being stark raving control freaks who want to put the hand of the government into every single dark orifice they can.
Is this not a conflict of interest? If someone sincerely wants to curb abortions in this country, then why take away the access to contraception?
"We're quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease."
This news makes me want to barf. I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion on this, whether you think this is an appropriate appointment.
The true crime here isn't who is heading this government office. It is the fact that this office exists in the first place. Do we need a federal office to take care of such matter as remembering to wrap your willy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
