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.
So typical of this Administration to appoint someone to a department they basically oppose. This is just like how John Bolton "I hate the U.N." got appointed to the U.N. Drug company executives run the FDA. Oil company executives forge our energy policy (still a state secret). Lumberjacks run the Forest Service. Caucasians run the Race Relations advisory committee. Torturers run the Justice Department. OK, some of this I made up, but you get the drift. I'm sure just like Michael Brown, she'll do a 'fine job'.
If I were President, I'd appoint people who's career history supports their office's goals. Environmentalists would run the EPA. Naturopaths would run the FDA. Truck drivers and airline pilots would run the Transportation Department. But, what to do with the ATF, appoint drunk gun-toting smokers? Help! Seriously, what this government has done and is continuing to do is astounding. Where is our outrage?
Typical, but not unusual for a standing president to appoint folks that mimic his/(perhaps her) POV.
In the health care arena, President Bush lost us many gains. And this area appears to be one that he has someone succeeded to steadily, but incrementally destroy: sex education; family planning; HIV & STI prevention; adolescent health...the list is endless and I don't want to forget stem cell research.
Only one other recent president was as negligent as GWB, and that was RR; both failed to promote good health care practices.
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.
Continued interference with the use of contraceptives from religious quarters will undermine the work of reducing pregnancies, increase abortions, escalate STIs and exacerbate poverty. All of these and other social ills are linked. Putting someone in a position of power to unseat sound health care policy is criminal.
Thanks for more information. She certainly doesn't seem to have the mind set for this particular agency. Maybe she won't do too much damage for the rest of his term.
Is her appointment one of those that has to be approved by Congress?
This is no more a conflict of interest then Bush appointing a gay man as the head of the US federal AIDS program.
Why so? Because the gay man is against AIDS treatment and prevention programs?
Sorry, but that's a cheap and poor analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
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.
I do. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Literally, in this case. How much does a condom cost? Now, how much does it cost the taxpayer to support a baby and child through birth, schooling, etc.? Compounded by the fact that the type of people who would need or receive "government funded birth control" would typically be the poor... and when THEY have babies, it's even MORE of a tax burden!
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.
