Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Interesting: One {{fact}} tag can spark a whole lot
:Indeed. Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US? Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Indeed. Conservative, out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that PP has more facilities in "ethnic schools" (as you called them) or neighborhoods as part of a strategy to reduce the number of minorities in the US? Besides the larger POV issue, this entry is not well written. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
==Advocacy==
PP does not simply "provide health services". It has positions and asserts them loudly.
Here is an example:
"Throughout the year, the federal government steps up its war on women and freedom of choice ... " [snip by Ed Poor for CP discussion]
* The U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program; HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer; the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects;" and "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden is named to oversee Title X, the nation's family planning program.
This implies that they strongly oppose abstinence - a point 'fact-tagged' in the article recently. They use this bullet point as 'ammunition' in the "war on women and freedom of choice".
This implies that they favor the POV of the United Nations, as the WHO is completely under UN control.
This accuses HHS of removing "medically accurate information about condom effectiveness", whatever that means. Looks like they advocate condom use for something - is it [[contraception]] and/or [[VD prevention]]? (Sorry about the archaic language, I don't think I'll ever make the switch to 'STD' - sounds like an oil additive.)
This asserts that there is no "proven link between abortion and breast cancer".
A whole bunch of interesting points to keep us busy in coming weeks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)