![]() |
| (Adobe PDF File 665k) |
Volume 27, Issue 11, october 21, 2004 Opinion |
|
“W” Stands for “What the $%&*?”
On blue campaign placards with bold white letters, generally in the lawns of upper class neighborhoods, one can find the most blatant lies of this presidential campaign, “W Stands for Women”. What’s next, Bush claiming endorsement from the Black Panther Party? I tried, I really tried to rationalize this ludicrous slogan. Sure, Bush did hire a few women into his administration, but this champion misogynist’s record is far from pro-woman. In fact, the only women I recall Bush standing up for were his precious twins when their underage drinking came into question. Let me guess, Bush was standing for women when he revoked 12.5 percent of the annual budget from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which is world renowned for improving the lives of women in developing countries. Bush quit writing checks when concerns came up that UNFPA was funding organizations that were forcing abortions and sterilization on women. This matter was investigated thoroughly, and rightfully so. UNFPA came up clean, but July 22, 2002, Bush declared UNFPA would not receive any funding. The Bush Administration found new concerns with UNFPA, including funding such radical medical practices as pap smears, providing contraceptives, HIV/AIDS prevention, mammograms, vasectomies, and efforts to end violence against women. Damn those unruly gynecologists and obstetricians. When will they learn?
Courtesy of the federal definition of abstinence-only education, sex education classes are now more watered down than movie theater fountain drinks. Teachers are now expected to tell their students that the best form of birth control and HIV/AIDS prevention, as well as protection from STDs, is abstinence until marriage. They cannot advocate condom use or even show a condom to the class. Literature is leaking in to schools presenting false statistics about condom use, like condoms having a 1 in 6 failure rate. Now girls might as well not set a standard for protected sex, since they are told that with safe sex, they have close to the same chances that pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and STDs will occur. Bush’s attack on women’s health has even brought the apolitical science communities into the political combat after forcing the National Cancer Institute to remove a fact sheet from their Web site stating that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This myth, started by anti-choice groups like Focus on the Family, has been torn apart by nearly every cancer research center in the country, yet Bush will not allow women to know the truth. Who are these women “W” stands for? Who likes to be lied to, denied health care, and have their reproductive choices limited by the government? Bush’s display of disregard and even contempt for the health of women around the globe speaks louder than any yard sign.
|
||
| Copyright © 2004, Metropolitan State College of Denver. The Met Online is a student-produced online version of the weekly student-run The Metropolitan newspaper, both operating under the direction of the Metropolitan State College of Denver Office of Student Publications. Each edition of the MetOnline has been designed with Web Standards in mind, and ADA / Section 508 rules. It is our hope everyone finds each edition of the MetOnlinee accessible. If for any reason we have gone amiss trying to follow ADA / Section 508 rules, please send us an email. We thank everyone who has providing us with feedback. |
||