Bush's War on Women Worldwide

Since the placement of this corporate owned presidency, the pious president has moved to implement the fascist dictates of the christian coalition, moving domestically and internationally to interfere in women's reproductive rights.

In EVERY way he is commiting a war of terror against women. This is the FIRST step Adolf Hitler made - controlling reproductive rights.

The christian coalition is a terrorist group based in the USA who clearly state they believe in the overthrow of democracy and the merging of church and state.


Gawd, we are being preached to by an Australian NAZI who owns FOX, the Bush crime family (15 million links today), and a religious cult of liars, cheats and money launderers.

The link below provides the data:


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:F9XHmHwgXlwJ:www.iwhc.org/document.cfm%3FdocumentID%3D125+Bush+Cheney+never+deliver+promised+aid,+funds+disappear&hl=en

Bush's Other War

The Assault on Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health, rights, Internationally and domestically, in our courts and in our schools, at the UN and on Capitol Hill, it is no exaggeration to say that the White House is conducting a stealth war against women. Its policies have devastating consequences for social and economic development, democracy, and human rights—and impact women and girls worldwide. This factsheet is also available at

http://www.bushsotherwar.org/.

Actions: International
UNFPA: The four-year freeze

On September 16, 2005, for the fourth time, President Bush refused to release funds appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) the world's largest family planning and reproductive health provider for women.

Citing unsubstantiated claims by an anti-family planning group that the agency supported coerced abortion and sterilization in China, the President in FY 2002 denied UNFPA $34 million.

In each of the next three years he also blocked Congressional funding intended for UNFPA, blocking a total of $127 million for the agency at a time when over half a million women die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth every year, and over 350 million couples lack access to contraception.

Four separate investigative teams including one dispatched by the U.S. State Department have found the Administration's charges against UNFPA to be groundless.

But despite the lack of evidence, and even as outrage grows among the American people, the Administration refuses to change its position, thereby denying safe motherhood services, contraceptives, fistula repair, and HIV/AIDS prevention to women in 140 developing countries worldwide. For more information about the UNFPA funding freeze, including information on how you can take action in support of UNFPA, visit http://www.iwhc.org/global/uspolicy/unfpa.1

Global Gag Rule: Stifling free speech

This Reagan-era policy, reinstated by President Bush on January 22, 2001, requires that in exchange for U.S. assistance for family planning services, foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving money through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) must withhold information from women about the option of legal abortion and where to obtain safe abortion services even if they use only their own funds to do so.

Additionally, the groups cannot engage in any public debate or disseminate any information regarding the health hazards of unsafe abortion, express support for any existing laws that support safe abortion, or provide legal abortion services with non-U.S. funding.

This policy stifles free speech and prevents medical professionals from offering the full range of legal, medically acceptable options to women. It is contrary to U.S. law and would be held unconstitutional if imposed on U.S.-based organizations.

On August 29, 2003, President Bush went even further, extending the Global Gag Rule to apply to foreign NGOs that receive money through the U.S. Department of State. Organizations that receive such funding serve some of the most vulnerable women in the world refugees and migrants displaced by war and civil unrest.

In FY 2004, the Senate attempted to expose the Global Gag Rules legal exceptionalism and limits on free speech through a provision to the FY 2004 foreign operations appropriations bill. The Bush administration threatened to veto the legislation if this provision was retained. Heeding the Administrations threats, Congress dropped the provision from the final FY 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, which includes foreign operations funding.

On April 5, 2005, the Senate acted again, passing the provision to overturn the Global Gag Rule as part of the State Department Authorization bill, though there are more steps in the legislative process before it can become law. For more information about the Global Gag Rule, including action opportunities, visit http://www.iwhc.org/global/uspolicy/ggr.2

The New Litmus Test: Limiting free speech, compromising sound practices

According to a June 10, 2005 directive issued by the Bush administration, all nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving federal HIV/AIDS funds must now adopt an organizational policy explicitly opposing prostitution, even if they are trying to decrease the spread of HIV by working directly with sex workers to reduce their vulnerability. This damaging new gag rule not only infringes on organizations right to free speech, but also undermines global efforts to eradicate sex trafficking, work respectfully and effectively with sex workers, and prevent the spread of HIV. It contradicts accepted public health practices: condemning sex workers livelihoods presents a significant obstacle to gaining the trust necessary to reach them with education, health services, and viable economic alternatives. And it offers no concrete steps for addressing the poverty, discrimination, and powerlessness that lead to sexual exploitation. Initially, this provision only applied to foreign NGOs, but the June 10 directive extended it to U.S.-based groups as well. This extension sets a dangerous precedent for other damaging provisions that put domestic politics over sound public health practice, most notably the Global Gag Rule (see Global Gag Rule above). Visit http://www.iwhc.org/docUploads/GrantRestricitonsMay2005.pdf to read a letter to the Bush administration, signed by public health, human rights, faith-based and community-based organizations from around the world who oppose this new restriction. So far, two organizations that receive funding for HIV prevention programs from USAID have initiated legal challenges on the constitutionality of this policy. A suit brought by DKT International states that the Administration policy infringes on their free speech (more information at http://www.dktinternational.org/dkt_sues_usaid.htm),and a suit brought by the Open Society Institute/Alliance for Open Society International states that because the policy requires private organizations to adopt the government’s point of view in order to receive funding, it is unconstitutional (more information at http://www.soros.org/newsroom/news/usaid_20050923).3

Beijing at 10: U.S. trying to undermine international agreement on women

In March 2005, 130 governments convened at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to review progress on the landmark Beijing agreement on womens health and rights. Once again, the Bush Administration stood alone in trying to undermine international consensus at the United Nations. Rather than working with other countries on concrete strategies for addressing womens broad health needs and advancing womens social, economic, and political opportunities, the U.S. delegation spent a full week focused on its anti-abortion amendment to the one-page reaffirmation of Beijing.

In spite of vigorous lobbying on the part of the U.S. delegation, the countries of the world stood firm in rejecting the U.S. language.

Eventually, the U.S. had no choice but to withdraw its amendment. This obstructionist U.S. behavior was particularly ironic given the Administrations calls for renewed international cooperation during President Bush and Secretary of State Rices trip to Europe just weeks before the CSW. In addition, the U.S. delegations insistence on clarifying that the Beijing agreement did not create any new international human rights is difficult to reconcile with the Administrations frequently stated commitment to promoting freedom and democracy overseas. For more information about the Administrations failed attempt to reinterpret the Beijing Platform for Action, see http://www.iwhc.org/global/un/beijingplusten/presscoverage.cfm.4

ICPD: Negating international agreements