GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

RE: [GreenYes] Last Chance to Try to Stop Ashcroft Nomination
Title: RE: [GreenYes] Last Chance to Try to Stop Ashcroft Nomination

Ann,
        Thank you for responding to my question.
                I think I understand the gist of your short answer.
        I have to admit though that I disagree w/ some key points.

>The overriding environmental problem in the world is too many people.

I don't believe this to be the problem.  I believe that the world is quite capable of supporting the current population.  The problem is that people are irresponsible and self-serving.  As you pointed out, Americans use more resources than any other country.  The solution is to curb our insatiable appetite - our appetite for material goods/wealth and our appetite for sex (to name just a few).  Every time we hop into our 4-wheel drive 6 cylinder car to drive a half a block to pick up a package of individually sliced and wrapped cheese, we fail our environment in several ways.  Every time we dance beneath the sheets in an irresponsible manner, we fail our environment, also I believe in several ways.

Abortion is not the answer - it's another self-serving irresponsible band-aid.

People are starving all over the world.  The problem isn't over population.  It's the distribution and waste of resources due to irresponsibility that is the problem.

>Ashcrofts belief that there should be no birth control, and especially no abortion,hense no family planning hence more unplanned or unwanted  pregnancies

My wife and I practice natural family planning.  This means that we don't use abortion as a means of birth control.  It also means that we don't use artificial means of birth control such as prophylactics and especially abortafacients such as the pill or IUDs.  That's true natural family planning for people who take responsibility for their actions.

>Let me point out that no one wants an abortion.  What is needed is
comprehensive family planning and education, both here in the US and
around the world. 

Over 1 million children are killed every year and over 38 million have been killed since Roe vs Wade (we're talking just in the US).  I think at least a few people want an abortion.

I agree on the education part.  I am leary on what you mean by "comprehensive family planning".  Does this include abortion as a means of birth control?  Or artificial birth control methods such as the pill or IUDs which act (at least in part) as abortifacients?

>Second, from a woman's perspective freedom of choice is very important.

No one wants an abortion, but it should be an option?

My heart goes out to EVERY woman who has had an abortion, legally or not.  And my heart also goes out to those unwanted chilren (UNWANTED CHILDREN - my God, how sinister is that?) that are killed every couple of minutes (again, just in the US).

>These non-medical operations often killed the woman or permnently sterilized her

Women are stilled killed or sterilized from abortion.  And what about the emotional baggage that goes along w/ an abortion (legally performed or not)?

And where do this aborted babies go?  The landfill I'm guessing.  Is that egologically sound?


Now that I understand a little bit more about Ashcroft's stand on the environment and how his job might affect the environment, I can understand why we should oppose him.  But if we're opposing him (and bush) because of his (their) view on birth control and abortion, I'm not with you on this one.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is the ONLY solution.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Schneider [mailto:schneiderann@juno.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 10:01 AM
To: tomt@mwes.com
Cc: greenyes@earthsystems.org
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] Last Chance to Try to Stop Ashcroft Nomination


Short Answer

The overriding environmental problem in the world is too many people.
The more people, the more resources needed to sustain them and the fewer
resources/space for plants and animals.  Americans use more resources
than people from any other country so every additional American has a
much larger impact on the environment.  So reason number one for the
environment is Ashcrofts belief that there should be no birth control,
and especially no abortion, hense no family planning hence more unplanned
or unwanted  pregnancies, more people, more resource consumption.

Let me point out that no one wants an abortion.  What is needed is
comprehensive family planning and education, both here in the US and
around the world. 

As you can see from one of bush's first actions - stopping US funding of
international family planning clinics that include discussion of abortion
or abortion * is a clear sign of conservative beliefs in this area.

* bush's order blocks funding from international clinics even if the
funding for abortion or discussion of abortion as an option comes from
other sources.

Second, from a woman's perspective freedom of choice is very important.
Prior to 1973, it was illegal to have an abortion in the US.  Women with
money could find a safe hospital, those without went to back alley
"abortion clinics".  These non-medical operations often killed the woman
or permnently sterilized her.    I don't believe Ashcroft will protect
freedom of choice and will lead us back to those dangerous times. 

Second, it is the Attorney Generals responsibility to enforce the laws of
the nation but I think Ashcroft will not emphasize laws that he does not
believe in, e.g., women's right to choose, pollution enforcement.  Again,
look at the other environmental cabinet nominee, Gale Norton, who
believes corporations can enforce environmental regulations on
themselves.  Or bush's policy in Texas where companies can enforce
environmental rules on themselves.  Check the record in Texas to find
that it ihas one of the greatest levels of pollution in the US.  Put the
two together and trying to protect the environment through direct action
may become quite difficult. 

Also remember that the Attorney General recommends federal judges who
decide on many environmental cases.  So, the AT is very important to the
protection of the environment.

It appears that Congress will pass Norton but take a stand on Ashcroft
because he is so far to the right.

Hope this helps you understand my reasons for opposing Ashcroft. (And I
didn't get into his civil rights actions but can forward legions of
information on this area to anyone who is interested.  If you step on
civil rights of people, what is to stop you from stepping on protecting
plants and animals.)

Ann Schneider

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:18:50 -0600 TomT <tomt@mwes.com> writes:
> Forgive my ignorance, but why do we oppose Ashcroft's nomination? 
> Will his job affect the environment?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Schneider [mailto:schneiderann@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:28 AM
> To: multiple recipients of
> Subject: [GreenYes] Last Chance to Try to Stop Ashcroft Nomination
>
>
> Okay, Mr. Cato, please bash me again, I respect your right to
> say anything you wish.  Perhaps you should respect action to
> forward information.
>
> Ann Schneider
>
>
> To counteract this enormous expenditure of corporate money we
> urgently need your help:
>
> 1. If you have not yet done so, contact your own Senators of
> whatever
> party and tell them you are opposed to Ashcroft. You can find their
> phone numbers at
>
> http://congress.nw.dc.us/dem/congdir.html


[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]