Planned Parenthood at risk

A major issue this past year has been the attempt by Congress to balance the budget. Part of that process is deciding which federal programs will receive funding for the coming fiscal year. The Republican controlled Congress has been pushing to remove funding for several national programs including PBS, NPR, and, most controversially, Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has been around for more than 90 years, providing sexual education and health resources to both men and women. Some Congressmen act as though this health center is nothing more than a government funded abortion clinic. There is no denying that Planned Parenthood offers abortions, but this service is only one of the many they offer. Their website claims that one in five American women has chosen to use Planned Parenthood and their resources at least once. The services include STD testing, pregnancy test, free or low cost birth control including condoms, and cancer screenings.

Some may point at a common trend that the Republican Party is following; they are simultaneously trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood and the Health Care bill, both of which are powerful health aids to people that can not afford traditional private health care or clinics. Statistics show that the United States is at the top of the list in terms of teen pregnancy per capita in the developed world. Countries at the bottom of the list, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have far reaching and mandatory sex education programs.

I think that the funding of Planned Parenthood should remain, however the funding could be aimed specifically at the other services that this group offers. By splitting apart the separate services, a compromise could be reached that would be better for both sides. I’m sure that both parties would agree that cancer screenings are both helpful for the public and free from any moral gray area. Although in the big picture, the 75 million dollars that is allocated to Planned Parenthood is a raindrop in the ocean that is our national budget.

A Circular Cycle in US Involvement

I am once again choosing to write about the conflict that is currently taking place in Libya. While it is not our government, because of our involvement, it places this topic as one of national concern. The United States military is participating in a multi government enacted no-fly zone turned offensive over the unstable country of Libya by attacking key targets using cruise missiles. Unfortunately, there have been innocent civilian casualties.

Medea Benjamin’s main point is that if the US ended the sale of weapons and support to foreign dictators, we would not be put in situations where we must step in to handle these same leaders. Medea speaks to those who wonder why we are in a situation where violence is the only obvious answer to stopping Gaddafi. Her view is that the government would rather safeguard its resources and protect its oil interests than refuse to stop helping oppressive regimes.

Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of the web site Codepink a hyper liberal site that is extremely anti-war. Benjamin’s views, while valid, are tinged with heavy personal opinion and a strong liberal standpoint. The information is quoted from legitimate sources but she never states anything from an opposing viewpoint. While the blog is well written, it also is difficult to digest her argument as she comes across as a radical.

That being said, I agree with her views 100 percent. We have a long history of supplying countries with weapons and support and then seeing those same weapons and bolstered leaders present against us in future conflicts. This includes a big example of America backing Iraq financially during the Iraq-Iran war and then fighting against the same corrupt dictator, Saddam Hussein, during the War in Iraq.

The US Reaction to Libya

A hot topic on the news lately is the possibility of a joint nation enacted no-fly zone over the unstable country of Libya. Gaddafi has recently been using his air force to strike against protesting civilians and a no-fly zone would curb his ability to maintain control of the country through the violent means that have characterized his presidency. A no-fly zone is a more diplomatically acceptable way to achieve this without sending in troops to physically invade the country. John F. Kerry, a democrat from Massachusetts, argues in support of a no-fly zone in this Washington Post editorial.

Kerry speaks primarily to those who are concerned for Libyan civilians and the Libyan democratic movement but are not sure if they want the United States to be involved directly. Some are not even sure what our options in Libya are. The author explains what a no-fly zone would entail as well as which international organizations we should move through, specifically NATO. For those who question the necessity of a United States intervention, Kerry references Bosnia and Kosovo, historical instances where the United States has helped Muslim countries as they seek democratic governments. To Kerry, this situation is no different.

John Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He writes this article coming from a background of diplomatically engaging with other states. While some politicians such as Newt Gingrich say we should go into Libya guns blazing, Kerry is suggesting a more peaceful, and frugal, approach in the long term.

While the current chain of revolutions in the Middle East are getting increasingly violent, there is a glimmer of hope throughout the intense bloodshed. Revolution leads to change, and in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia it lead to positive government and social change. Through better social freedoms and potential increase in the standard of living, these revolutions can lead to more permanent stability in the Middle East. And if you will remember not too long ago, we were part of a revolution that lead to the start of a pretty awesome country.

Obama and DOMA

    Some people say that gay rights are the Civil Rights of our generation. Everyone has an opinion and it has been a controversial topic in our past few elections. Recently, President Obama has withdrawn federal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This article in The Washington Post is a followup to the announcement showing the Republican response to Obama’s decision. The article quotes John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, as saying that his party sees this as Obama stirring up controversial issues just as the 2012 presidential elections are in sight.
    I believe that this article is important to read because it reinforces my opinion that politicians are always playing the public for re-election. For instance, Republicans have formed a platform around Obama’s economic failures while Obama knows that his strong stance on gay rights helped him in the election due to the high number of young voters that back same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I believe that this action of Obama’s is a step in the right direction for the civil rights of America.