The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | Abstinence Ed Rejected, Abortion Protected Under House Bill | Comments

Comment 1

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:47:51 CST

The A-B-C model doesn’t apply if you’re viewed as property and forced into a marriage with an HIV positive man. Re: abortions, most sub-saharan African villages don’t have access to BASIC medical care, let alone the advent of abortion clinics. The rights of unborn children ARE at grave risk here, but NOT from abortion, but from HIV. Please advocate for CULTURALLY RELEVANT policies - local HIV prevention workers in Kenya have told me that President Bush’s order imposing such restrictions resulted in serious cultural barriers in until-then successful HIV prevention - in turn causing unnecessary HIV transmission, and deaths. Please consider the children when you’re advocating for restricting their chances to be born HIV-negative. I, having looked into the eyes of too many HIV-positive newborns, prayerfully thank you for your consideration of, if not agreement with, my ideas.

Comment 2

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:35:49 CST

Re: my comment above, the order I was referring to was President Bush’s executive order, reinstating the abstinence restrictions placed on HIV relief in Africa that were revoked by President Clinton. My conversations with local HIV prevention workers were in March of 2007, while I was in Kenya. The proposed PATHWAY bill, which would lift the abstinence restrictions, would also build in requirements for strategies that address the special needs of vulnerabilities of women and girls at particular risk due to being trafficked as forced wives. Here is a brand new article - which came out after my first post - that further expounds on the plight of the newly born children - please, please don’t make this issue about abortion, these kids need your support of the PATHWAY act, and your opposition of the Pitts and Smith amendments which would restrict these kids’ chances!!!! Thank you.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_re_af/africa_s_child_aids