This column on Bush's decision to cut funding for reproductive health programs which help save the lives of thousands of women and babies is reason enough to kick his ass out of office (and make sure the Republicans don't control the Senate or House) in 2004.
I'm reproducing the full column because it will cost $2.95 in a week (like this short article on the decision) and needs to be publicly available until a new President takes the oath of office. Also, another column on the issue, plus you can take action.
Links added to the story (which I argue makes it fair use - plus this site posts all of Krugman's writing - used to be the NYT online staff added links at the end of many pieces).
Killing Them Softly
New York Times, 9-20-03
NAIROBI, KenyaIn fairness to President Bush, he presumably meant well when he cut off funds for some of the world's most vulnerable women.
The Bush administration announced a few weeks ago that it was halting payments to the Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium because, it said, one of the seven charities in the consortium was linked to abortions in China. So I decided to do what the White House didn't — come out and see these programs we are slashing.
That's where I met Rose Wanjera, a 26-year-old woman with one small child and another due about November (she isn't sure because she hasn't had any prenatal care). This month her husband was mauled to death by wild dogs, and she developed an infection that threatens her health and the unborn baby's.
She turned to a clinic affiliated with Marie Stopes International, where a doctor treated her infection, palpated her bulging stomach and enrolled her in a safe-motherhood program. Unfortunately, this is the very aid group that the White House is campaigning against for supposedly being involved in abortions in China. Even before the latest cuts for aid to refugees, the Kenyan program of Marie Stopes International had already had to close two clinics and lay off 80 doctors and nurses because the Bush administration had applied its "gag rule" (no money to groups that mention abortions) and cut off grants for it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Brian Flemming
Thanks for posting this, Steve.
I think anyone who says that the religious right has no significant influence on U.S. policy needs to buy a plane ticket to Kenya.
Phillip Winn, I'm looking in your direction (comment #11).
You can start here.
2 - visualsimplicity
Since when does the FDA need to spam people?
3 - Tom Murphy
We need to use everything we can to defeat Bush. CHeck out my web site, the fact that Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11 is never mentioned by the media.
My group is the only one making this an issue.
You can by T-Shirts too. http://www.cafeshops.com/newpriorities
4 - Red
"Complications of pregnancy and childbirth kill a quarter-million African women each year, and those deaths are what the refugee consortium is trying to prevent."
A question that came to mind when I read this statement was, "How many children does abortion kill a year?"
Just a thought, but I was wondering what you would say in response to it.
5 - Ms. Tek
0
fetuses aren't children.
6 - Al Barger
My, Ms Tek, but that's a very convenient and utterly illogical belief system.
At what point does that "choice" attain personhood? The childbirth I recently witnessed pulled out a fully made person. Was he not a person the day before? Or the day before that? A couple hours later- after the birth, it was then a person? It would be murder to kill an hour post-birth child?
It's enough to give a little fellow a complex.
7 - JR
The childbirth I recently witnessed pulled out a fully made person.
Really? You mean he could already forage for his own food, speak, write, drive, pay bills, do calculus, and breed?
8 - Eric Olsen
Abortion is probably THE intractable moral issue of our time. There are deeply powerful and emotional argumetns for both sides. For now we compromise: there comes a point in time when the needs and rights of the fetus overcome those of the mother. Most people aren't comfortable with abortion after the first trimester other than for extreme circumstances like the health of the mother.
Is it perfect of morally consistent? No, it comes down to competing rights, but most people also find the notion that a just-conceived fetus has the same rights as the woman carrying it to be absurd, while they would be much happier if the conception had been prevented in the first place, and most people see an element of irresponsibility in abortion, especially when a woman has more than one. Most people find "abortion as birth control" to be morally unacceptable.
9 - Ms. Tek
And most people who have abortions and the people who support the right to chose are not saying that it should be used as a form of birth control.
Planned parenthood does so much more than perform abortions. They provide STD checks, prescribe birth control, give out condoms. Some even do pre-natal care. The truth is that unless you are the person who is pregnant and know all that is surrounding you, you have no idea what is going on. Let her and her God duke it out. No bad deed goes unpunished.
No body should be forced to have kids they do not want. ESP when there are so many kids out there that need to be adopted. Even worse, no one wants a minority child unless it comes from China. THAT is what disgusts me. We have all these treatments for infertility, etc... and everyday kids grow up in group homes. What kind a vanity is it that you must raise a child of your loins? A child is a child... black, white, yellow, red, brown, and if you raise her with love and oppertunity, she is just as much your child as if it came out of you, or out of asia (rolls eyes).
Conservatives are so worried about abortion, yet they do nothing for the kids already suffering here. Show me where they are adopting more kids, improving education, improving the quality of life for people before we worry about bringing more in.
10 - Al Barger
I fully understand that there are issues and circumstances. For starters, I'm not real thrilled about granting the government at any level the power over something going on up in your body ever. What if the woman was raped, what if... I end up having to be mostly pretty much pro-choice, however begrudgingly.
However, I STRONGLY object to having unborn children de-humanized, as per comment 5. "0 Fetuses aren't children." Damn, that's cold. That would be just about exactly equivalent to some evil old plantation owner claiming that Negroes aren't people. NONE of the pro-choice arguments changes the fact that we're talking about little people.
JR's comment 7 was particularly noxious. No, my godson was not born walking, talking, or fending for himself. So he's not really a person, then? Is he still open for a post-partum abortion until what, age 6 or 8 because he can't yet take care of himself?
Ms Tek's arguments in #9 are just silly and irrelevant. The Republicans are not spending enough on welfare programs, so they have no right to bitch about killing babies. What kind of serious argument is that?
11 - Eric Olsen
I think it is a serious argument as to the practicality fo the matter, which is central to why we have legal abortion in the first place: forcing people to have unwanted, unplanned, and children they are unwilling or unable to care for is simply not practical, and if the mother can't/won't do it, the rest of society gets "stuck" with the job, which is where social welfare comes in. Abortion and social welfare are thereby directly related.
12 - Ms. Tek
I don't consider adoption to be welfare.
But what do I know? I'm just a bleeding heart that cares about kids with no homes. Shelters are crappy places.
13 - JR
Hey, don't blame me. God made fetuses and children unable to defend themselves or even survive unassisted. If you're going to be offended, be offended at God. God is the one who dehumanized "unborn children". God is pro-choice; who am I to argue with Him?
14 - Al Barger
So are you arguing that no one who has not adopted children has any right to complain about killing unborn children?
15 - Ms. Tek
LOL
*puts devils horns on*
Acutally, I think God knew how much damage and evil the human creature can do. This is why he made out children to be dependent on a parent longer than any other species in the world. Most onther creatures after 2-5 years can take care of themselves. God knew wanted to even the balance out to have us die more easily. The damn thing is that we learned science and now nature is not allowed anymore.
Damn humans!
16 - Al Barger
That's real clever and all, JR and Victoria, but I didn't invoke any God- and you didn't even TRY to address my issue.
It would appear from your responses that you do in fact think that it would be okay to just abort an inconvenient year old baby. I find it unlikely that either of you are quite that monstrous, but that's how it reads.
17 - Ms. Tek
I don't address you, Barger. We've been over this.
And you're right, I could never live up to your monstrosity. Sorry.
*Shrugs*
18 - Al Barger
Really Victoria, is anyone supposed to take you seriously as a respectable, thinking human being? Or are we all just supposed to be wowed by your mere emotional outbursts and presumptions of self-righteousness?
I'm a "monstrosity" for the crime of having been passing friendly with someone who has issues with black folk. You, on the other hand, are the fount of morality because you believe in de-humanizing and then killing unborn children at will with no consideration whatsoever of their personhood.
I'm so impressed.
19 - JR
Funny thing Al, the God argument seemed to be good enough for you to defend scientific racists. Is it only valid when you agree with the conclusion?
I've heard of cultures where a baby wasn't considered a "person" for months or years after birth. In such cases, a parent killing the child wasn't considered murder. That's not our culture, and I personally have no desire to adopt such customs. But there is no universal, definitive transition point to "personhood". The definition of the term itself is as flexible as the definition of "monstrous".
Pre-partum, the life of the baby cannot be sustained without the help of the mother. Afterwards, others can step in and take the place of the mother. That seems as good a point as any for society to confer a "right to life", as it is only at that point that the rest of us can in any reasonable way defend that right.
The debate over late term abortions may generate a lot of noise over the next several years, but the battle over early term abortions is essentialy decided. With "morning after" pills available, women will be able to abort without anybody ever knowing they were pregnant. Laws against abortion have become as enforceable as laws against smoking pot.
20 - Ms. Tek
No Al,
Your are a monstrosity because your mouth smells like poop when you open it.
Thank God I don't impress you. That means I'm doing something right with my life.
You better go answer some of your Aryan Front emails. I hear they are wondering where you are.
Al... Al... where is the white sheet we loaned you?
21 - Al Barger
JR, I don't recall ever defending any "scientific racism," whatever exactly that is, and certainly not by reference to some God. What in blazes are you talking about?
I understand the issues about enforcing a right to life for fetuses and all that. I just ask that people quit pretending that a six month old child in utero is not human, like it's just a blob of tissue. That's just not recognizing facts in order to make it easier to justify killing inconvenient children.
Again, this is very much similar to a slave owner convincing themselves that Negroes were not really human so that they might justify their continued wickedness toward them.
22 - JR
Comment 19
23 - Ms. Tek
HAHAHA!!
Al looks funny with his pants down!
No wonder he needs that white sheet!
24 - Al Barger
Wow! Busted! This would appear to be the most incriminating piece from my comments there: "There are some differences between racial groups, perhaps some slightly different talents here and there."
If that's your idea of a Klansman or a racist, then I'll take that for evidence that real racism from white folks in America is dead.
It's just purely dishonest to pretend that there are no genetic differences whatsoever between different racial groups. I tend to mostly discount genetics in terms of behavior, suspecting nurture rather than nature to be responsible for most observable differences in group behavior.
It is also purely dishonest and slanderous to label anyone who notices any differences as being a "racist" or a "scientific racist." It's surely a fact that African-Americans tend to be taller than Jews, and thus have some advantage in playing NBA level basketball. It's pushing the word "racism" to the point of being meaningless to give me that label for noticing.
25 - Shark
Ohhhh, goody! Are we doin' Abortion?! There goes the neighborhood!
SHARK'S TAKE:
When the world population reaches 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, BILLION, (our lifetime, according to most projections) we'll look back on this debate with nostalgia.
Abortion will probably be a state-supported necessity, or even a state-sanctioned law. We'll not only be giving them away at your local drive-thru window, they might even be mandatory.
And "post-partum" abortions will be performed in the millions DAILY by Mommy Nature and/or God him/herself in the guise of famine, disease, wars, and other 'natural' catastrophes... I mean..natural population controls.
In the not-too-distant-future, the only reason one more newborn will be celebrated will be because somebody needs a fresh meal.
BTW: Over-population is at the heart of every problem we face on this planet, and yet it will be the LAST one addressed by politicians and the populace.
And have a nice day.