wallsofsilence.com

Childhood trauma and its consequences
It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:08 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 45
Most types of child abuse are being openly discussed and challenged at government level, even if many countries haven't enforced their child protection laws with due diligence. But there's one last taboo.... male circumcision. It's the only type of child abuse that hasn't yet been targeted by UNICEF. The big question is "Why not?" The question is being pursued by child rights organizations.

I have my suspicions. The USA provides the largest single contribution to UNICEF, even if it's a lower percentage of GDP than many European countries are willing to give. As a conservative Christian George W. Bush was opposed to the use of condoms to combat the spread of HIV, and there appears to be some evidence that male circumcision reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of infection. Accordingly, the Bush administration provided funding for mass circumcision schemes in Africa. No doubt George W. Bush pressured the UN not to oppose male circumcision. Does President Obama have the courage to reverse that policy? Would it cost more to subsidize condoms in Africa (99.9% effective) than a surgical procedure by authorized medical staff? Condoms can be manufactured much more cheaply than the commercial price in the Western retail outlets.

If anyone wants to know the bigger picture on research into HIV transmission - the truth, not the claims - it's here: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2007/ ... ditor.html

_________________
Bernard


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Obama is on the ball
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 45
In my previous post I asked if President Obama had the courage to reverse the "no condoms" policy. Since yesterday, I found a Factsheet on the Kaiser Foundation website that answers the question....

Kaiser Foundation wrote:
The Obama Administration has stated its strong support for FP/RH (Family Planning & Reproductive Health) as part of the overall U.S. global health portfolio. The U.S. Global Health Initiative (GHI), a $63 billion six-year initiative announced in May 2009 calls for a more comprehensive global health agenda and women- and girl-centered approach. The GHI includes the specific FP/RH target to "prevent 54 million unintended pregnancies by FY 2014."

The Obama Administration has also reversed prior restrictions on the use of funding for family planning assistance by rescinding the Mexico City Policy and restoring funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). U.S. support for achieving universal access to reproductive health as specified in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development's (ICPD) Programme of Action has been reaffirmed.

* The Mexico City Policy: First instituted by President Reagan in 1984 through executive order, the Mexico City Policy required foreign NGOs to certify that they would not perform or promote abortion using funds from any source, as a condition for receiving U.S. funding. This policy has been a highly debated issue, rescinded by President Clinton, reinstated by President Bush, and rescinded again by President Obama in January 2009.

* UNFPA: Although the U.S. helped create UNFPA in 1969 and was a leading contributor for many years, there have been several years in which funding has been withheld due to executive branch determinations that UNFPA's activities in China violated the Kemp-Kasten amendment which prohibits funding any program, as determined by the President, that supports coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In March 2009, President Obama announced that the U.S. would restore UNFPA funding; $50 million was provided in FY 2009 and $55 million in FY 2010.

* The U.S. government's stated FP/RH objective is to expand sustainable access to quality voluntary FP/RH services and information to: enhance efforts to reduce high-risk pregnancies; allow sufficient time between pregnancies; provide information, counseling, and access to condoms to prevent HIV transmission; reduce the number of abortions; support women's rights; and stabilize population growth. Increased emphasis on linking HIV and FP/RH through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is one component.

_________________
Bernard


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:52 am
Posts: 45
After months of debate and campaigning to collect signatures....

Quote:
On Wednesday, city officials confirmed that 7,700 signatures were collected in support of a male circumcision ban. The initiative would restrict males under the age of 18 from being circumcised, and violators would be fined $1,000 and receive up to a year in prison.

http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?ID=24985

_________________
Bernard


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group