English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

On Nov 17th, Bush appointmented of a doctor, Dr. John Agwunobi, who opposes abortion rights, access to contraception and even premarital sex as head of the federal family planning office.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/17/family.planning.ap/index.html

Is this Bush's idea of 'meeting in the middle' as he has promised was a lesson he learned after America spoke in the election?

Whether or not you agree or do not agree with any of the doctor's beliefs, is such a far right move by Bush not a sign that he has no intentions of moving to the center or working with the democrats?

Is this not a sign of same old, same old forcing of Bush's far right agenda?

2006-11-29 04:06:18 · 16 answers · asked by BeachBum 7 in Politics & Government Politics

Elaboration on 'meeting in the middle':

It is not the doctor's pro-life stance alone that makes this such a far right selection... many democrats are pro-life. It is the doctor's other values that put him over the top of the far right cliff.

2006-11-29 04:36:57 · update #1

16 answers

It is just another move in a long line of them that highlights Bush's penchant for self-righteousness. To him, it matters not that the majority of the American people don't approve of him, his tactics, or his job performance. Right after the mid-terms he was all welcoming and talking about working together with the Democrats. I hoped for once he was being forthright and truthful, but lately I've realized that a leopard really doesn't change its spots. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and there you have it. For the next two years it's going to be a battle in Washington D.C. I was stunned by his declaration that civil war is not happening in Iraq. That man has the worst case of tunnel vision I have ever seen in a President. It's a sure sign of egomania when someone is unable to ever admit they are wrong about anything. Honestly, this man is the worst President I have ever witnessed in office, and I've been alive long enough to remember Nixon like it was yesterday.

2006-11-29 04:22:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

I do not see where this is an attempt to forcing any far right agenda. It is possible that maybe Dr Keroack is the most qualified person to hold the position.

Who better to lead an office that oversees federally funded teen pregnancy, family planning and abstinence programs than a Dr who works primarily with women and girls in crisis and known for his work in preventing teen pregnancy .

I don't see where in that article or any other article where you can come up with the assumption that the "doctor's other values that put him over the top of the far right cliff." I've Googled him and can not find anything more damning (in your view) than the man isn't an advocate of abortions. That is not a deciding factor on whether or not he is far right, left or has a fence post stuck in his rear. I am fairly conservative yet I am pro-choice in most circumstances. People are allowed to have varying viewpoints and not fit into molds. He is nationally renowned for working primarily with women and girls in crisis and for his work in preventing teen pregnancy. I don't see these as bad things. I find it odd that you do.

I have to wonder how different the perception of the readers to the article you have linked to if the Headline would have read something like 'Nationally Renowned Obstetrician Known For His Work In Preventing Teen Pregnancy Recieves Appointment' would be instead of the inflammatory 'Contraception, abortion foe to head family-planning office'. No leftist agenda on CNN's part is there!! *lol* (Sorry, couldn't resist)

2006-11-29 21:59:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I would expect nothing less. A man with limited intelligence has a limited agenda.

What is curious to me is why does the Government need a "federal family planning office." Or is that just another example of the Smaller Federal Government.

On the same topic a Federal Law was passed circa 1880 forbidding all sex for reasons other than procreation. It also forbids using the mail or a private freight company to transport literature or devices for the purpose of contraception or any form of birth control.

The law actually has the teeth to stop all abortion at any time. But the Government is not in the anti abortion business. It is in the regulated society business.

I don't feel like searching the source or SB number; but it is easy to find if anyone is interested.

Go big Red Go

2006-11-29 04:48:34 · answer #3 · answered by 43 3 · 2 2

I really do see your point, but let me ask you something - if he would have selected someone who shares your views, wouldn't that be bending to the FAR LEFT agenda?

Any way you look at it, people are going to be pissed. While I am pro-choice, I'd rather have someone in there who understands the concept of personal responsibility. I think abortion is kind of like welfare - it's a great idea, but the implementation isn't so hot. Do you think it's acceptable for women to use abortion as birth control? It's not very unusual and it's not only disgusting, but it proves a total lack of responsibility. There are plenty of methods of birth control out there - yes, including abstinence - and there is NO excuse for multiple abortions.

Of course, I also think that deadbeat dads should have a HUGE tattoo right in the middle of their face so that every woman who comes into contact with him knows what she's in for.

2006-11-29 04:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2 2

Wow, does that mean no more free condoms for the teenagers who intend on having sex with or w/o parental permission? I just love conservative parents who chose to keep their heads in the sand - the whole reason for the Liberal Party existence. Anyway, yes this is a sign of Bush doing whatever he damn-well pleases.

2006-11-29 04:22:06 · answer #5 · answered by T S 5 · 3 2

Yeah, more of those provocative in-your-face appointments, including 6 federal judges previously rejected by the Judiciary Committee.

2006-11-29 04:09:19 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 3 1

Bush has said since 1999 that he wants to be a "Uniter not a Divider". Once again, actions speak louder than words.

2006-11-29 04:45:53 · answer #7 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2 2

With George Bush compromise is do it Dead Eye ***** way, I wonder if he has any conscious at all, here is a coke snorting, alcoholic, with no morals, making life and death decisions for other people and he offers no compromise.

2006-11-29 06:47:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Perhaps the President believes the Doctor is capable of evaluating all situations fairly and for the good of all people without allowing his own personal beliefs to get in the way!!

2006-11-29 04:13:07 · answer #9 · answered by Smoky! 4 · 4 4

And yet he (Dr. Agwunobi) is renowned for his work in preventing teen pregnancy. It seems that the only one to say that is planned parenthood. Maybe they are feeling a little threatened after all it a big business for them.

2006-11-29 04:18:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers