Should US finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa? McCain: I haven't thought about it.

[cynatnite]

McCain seems to have supported Bush, mostly out of instinct, and when a reporter asked him this spring whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, he initially said, ``I haven't thought about it,'' and later added, ``You've stumped me.''

Retrograde decisions on reproductive health are reached in conference rooms in Washington, but I've seen how they play out in African villages. A young woman lies in a hut, bleeding to death or swollen by infection, as untrained midwives offer her water or herbs. Her husband and children wait anxiously outside the hut, their faces frozen and perspiring as her groans weaken.

When she dies, her body is bundled in an old blanket and buried in a shallow hole, with brush piled on top to keep wild animals away. Her children sob and shriek and in the ensuing months they often endure neglect and are far more likely to die of hunger or disease.

In some parts of Africa, a woman now has a 1-in-10 risk of dying in childbirth. The idea that U.S. policy may increase that toll is infuriating.

http://www.indianagazette.com/articles/2008/10/13/opinions/syndicated_columnists/10003864.txt

:grr: :cry:

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. "Mr. McCain, can I just follow up on that, then. Is there anything that you HAVE thought about?

Let's start there, and work our way up."

[Lucky 13]

2. The most deadly infectious illness of our time...

... and he hasn't thought about it.

Nice. It's called current events. Try to keep up, John.

[Betsy Ross]

3. Will someone please explain to McCain

how condums work.

[liberalmuse]

4. Coming from the guy who does not even have a transition team.

Scary!

[ericgtr]

5. Africa is an issue which Bush has actually done well with

No I am not praising the war monger, just pointing out that he's done some pretty decent humanitarian work for them. McCain is obviously afraid to express his real thoughts without his panel telling him how to respond. Here's a tip John, nobody will fault you for trying to prevent millions of deaths each year by sending aid, whether is be in the form of money or birth control.

[cynatnite]

6. At the very beginning of the article...

The Bush administration this month is quietly cutting off birth control supplies to some of the world's poorest women in Africa.

Thus the paradox of a ``pro-life'' administration adopting a policy whose result will be tens of thousands of additional abortions each year - along with more women dying in childbirth.

Now, do you want to stick to your contention that bush has done decent humanitarian work in Africa?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Moreover...

Bush has been cutting funding to africa to appeal to abstinence-only groups since the beginning of his Administration.

[ericgtr]

8. "vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion"

Yes, I definitely want to "stick to my contention". Africa is an extremely poor and impoverished country and he has done a lot for them. Just because he's a terrible president doesn't mean he hasn't done good things for Africa and while you may belittle me for pointing this out, I am sure there are millions of grateful citizens from Africa who will disagree.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

...Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.

[cynatnite]

9. Let's start with your source...

In the same article...

"I know a lot of activist groups who believe that the president's stated commitment to Africa is, at best, a play on words," said Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, a Washington-based advocacy organization. "First of all, much of the aid is emergency food or medical aid, rather than true development assistance. Then there are conditions that are attached where the emphasis is more on countries that open up their markets so American companies can go in and privatize things like water and electrical service or have access to certain resources."

Here is another source...

The Bush Administration has significantly increased aid to Africa, but that increase falls far short of what the President has claimed. U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) has not "tripled" or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms). The majority of that increase consists of emergency food aid, rather than assistance for sustainable development of the sort Africa needs to achieve lasting poverty reduction.

President Bush has thus far rejected Blair's call to double aid to Africa, as well as the benchmark set by the OECD and signatories to the Monterrey Consensus, which called on developed countries to devote 0.7% of their gross national income to overseas development assistance by 2015. In declining to commit to either of these targets, President Bush frequently states that his Administration has "tripled" U.S. assistance to Africa over the past four years to $3.2 billion. On June 7, 2005, the President also announced that the U.S. will spend an additional $674 million, which consists of previously appropriated emergency humanitarian food aid. The U.S. recently agreed with G-8 partners to cancel the multilateral debt owed by 18 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, a positive step forward.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0627africa_rice.aspx

They fudge the numbers by using what they are already doing. That's not to mention the fact that much of funds are contigent that clinics do not mention the word abortion at all.