Reply With Quote
what a bunch of libby-leftist-leftys
...try to help women out who have lost everything. Those evil bas s.
link
Contraceptives Giveaway Blasted
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
September 01, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - "Did you escape the hurricane without your birth control?" asks Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas.
"As a courtesy to women fleeing Hurricane Katrina, we will offer one free cycle (one month) of birth control or one free Emergency Contraception kit to women" who come to a Houston-area Planned Parenthood clinic and produce a valid Louisiana or Mississippi driver's license.
The group's website says the offer is good until September 10.
The generosity does not impress a pro-life group that considers birth control pills and emergency contraception abortifacients.
"It is absolutely unconscionable that Planned Parenthood would use the tragedy of hurricane Katrina to push its shameless agenda on the American public," said Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International.
Thousands of people displaced by the Hurricane are being moved from the New Orleans Superdome to the Houston's Astrodome.
"In New York City in 2001, Planned Parenthood used the 9/11 attacks to publicize its programs by offering free contraceptives and abortions for the week after the terrorists struck," said Sedlak.
"Now the organization is exploiting one of the worst natural disasters in American history for cheap publicity by offering one month's supply of free birth control and so-called emergency contraception to victims of Katrina.
"If Planned Parenthood really wants to help, it should donate a portion of the millions of dollars in profits it makes every year to aid in the victims' plights," Sedlak said.
He called Planned Parenthood's latest stunt disgusting and inappropriate but not surprising: "The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is out to promote its own agenda and will stop at nothing to take advantage of an opportunity to do so."
How the is this not appropriate? Do natural disasters now make women infertile? Or are you just not supposed to have sex until you get your life back together?
I believe this is one instance where you can definitely say that I most certainly do NOT follow the conservative line.
But it's the same old , I guess, from those that don't have a damn clue about how the Pill actually works.
what a bunch of libby-leftist-leftys
What's the over/under on girls named Katrina nine months from now?
what a bunch of libby-leftist-leftys
huh?
I actually had a similar thought when I was reading that article.
Are they to help with the screwing they are getting from this administration?
^
I think it's is wrong to not help those women out,
Guess this guy would probably oppose my platform of making birth control free and mandatory when I run for office.
I'd still vote for you.
Really, is ing that much of a priority here?
Really, is ing that much of a priority here?
What does priority have to do with it?
Mark one down for the "No Physical Intimacy Until You Get Your Life Sorted Out" column.
You know babies don't really come from storks, right?
Well, if you think that's bad, look at what the WH is doing to poverty and infant mortality...
Nicholas Kristoff, NY TimesThe Larger Shame
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: September 6, 2005
The wretchedness coming across our television screens from Louisiana has illuminated the way children sometimes pay with their lives, even in America, for being born to poor families.
It has also underscored the Bush administration's ongoing reluctance or inep ude in helping the poorest Americans. The scenes in New Orleans reminded me of the suffering I saw after a similar storm killed 130,000 people in Bangladesh in 1991 - except that Bangladesh's government showed more urgency in trying to save its most vulnerable citizens.
But Hurricane Katrina also underscores a much larger problem: the growing number of Americans trapped in a never-ending cyclone of poverty. And while it may be too early to apportion blame definitively for the mishandling of the hurricane, even President Bush's own administration acknowledges that America's poverty is worsening on his watch.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported a few days ago that the poverty rate rose again last year, with 1.1 million more Americans living in poverty in 2004 than a year earlier. After declining sharply under Bill Clinton, the number of poor people has now risen 17 percent under Mr. Bush.
If it's shameful that we have bloated corpses on New Orleans streets, it's even more disgraceful that the infant mortality rate in America's capital is twice as high as in China's capital. That's right - the number of babies who died before their first birthdays amounted to 11.5 per thousand live births in 2002 in Washington, compared with 4.6 in Beijing.
Indeed, according to the United Nations Development Program, an African-American baby in Washington has less chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in urban parts of the state of Kerala in India.
Under Mr. Bush, the national infant mortality rate has risen for the first time since 1958. The U.S. ranks 43rd in the world in infant mortality, according to the C.I.A.'s World Factbook; if we could reach the level of Singapore, ranked No. 1, we would save 18,900 children's lives each year.
Awesome. Now Bush is a baby killer.
Awesome. Now Bush is a baby killer.
You beat me to it...
Rofl Dan, what would be his motive?
With people out there like you posting this crap...
If they had lived... that would be 18,000 more votes for his party.
Just saves you wishing they were dead later.
I'm just saying...if you've lost your contraceptive and you don't want to have a baby, wouldn't it be prudent to wait until you get them...is it that much of a dire emergency that you get yer hole poked?
Sure. But the sex lives of others really shouldn't be any of your damn business, should it?
Nope. I just think its a silly priority to be worried about at the moment. Sue me.
Particularly when a private organization does nothing more than make contraceptives available. It's not as if PP is forcing people to take contraceptives. If some choose not to engage in intercourse while reorganizing their lives, so be it. If couples choose to engage in unprotected intercourse while reorganizing their lives so be it. If individuals wish to engage in intercourse, but would prefer that they be protected against pregnancy, what difference does it make to any of us that a private organization is willing to provide contraception?
Let me caveat my last response by saying that if the other person's sex life is supported by tax dollars, yeah, it's my business.
Yes, it certainly is bad for responsible people wanting to delay having children with a significant other until after they are done living in a damn sports arena, or at a relative's house, or in a house flooded with water.
Think of it as a good investment in not having to pay as many welfare dollars in the immediate future.
How do you know it is? And how would you like to monitor that?Let me caveat my last response by saying that if the other person's sex life is supported by tax dollars, yeah, it's my business.
Who made it a priority other than the American Life League? It was an article that I came across that I thought was ridiculous. WTF? If you don't like the topic, then get out of the thread...it's not that difficult.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
