Bush's position is illogical
Nine well-meaning US Supreme Court justices can disagree, especially about the most explosive and controversial issue to confront America in the past century. On the 30th anniversary of the Roe versus Wade ruling, which guarantees every woman the right to a safe, affordable abortion, there seems to be a politically-motivated desire brewing to reverse this decision.
Having already survived three Republican and Democratic administrations and numerous attempts to overturn this law, US President George W. Bush, US Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Christian Right and the other extreme right-wingers have whole-heartedly devoted themselves to push anti-choice legislation through the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches, the first since the 1973 decision.
However, several challenges await the already struggling Bush administration. Any attempted reversal of the law before his re-election campaign next year is not unlikely, it is impossible, unless Bush seeks to become a political kamikaze.
First, Bush's devotion to this issue is based on the bizarre notion that abortion is another name for cold-blooded murder. True, he never held back from disclosing his opinion but it was also rarely raised during his campaign and butting heads on other issues with former US vice president Al Gore. Bush is firm that the only case in which abortion can possibly be warranted is when there is severe and imminent danger to the mother's health, the same position his father took as president.
So, does this mean that victims of rape and incest cannot receive an abortion? Can this possibly make sense? Clearly, Bush cannot condemn "murder" through abortion by a rape victim while simultaneously condoning capital punishment for rapists, a position Bush has adamantly supported in the past.
Second, Bush's insistence that abortion will be unnecessary, as long as his "abstinence only" and programs for contraceptive education are successful, is a falsehood. No method of birth control is 100 percent effective and for many, contraceptive devices are simply unavailable.
Bush's administration has not only backed numerous measures to limit worldwide and domestic access to abortion and contraceptive means, the same bills vetoed by former US president Bill Clinton, but he has also contributed large funds in an ailing US economy to closing reproductive centers and abortion clinics in many urban centers.
With the inability to receive contraceptives pills and devices and Planned Parenthood counseling from these locations, how can his planned abstinence program be effective? How does Bush attempt to fulfill a successful anti-abortion campaign other than hiding it behind his war on terrorism?
Finally, statistics taken in the 1970s regarding the general public's opinion of abortion has remained relatively unchanged. Approximately 75 percent of females in the US and more than 55 percent of men still support access to safe, legal abortions.
Even liberals in Bush's administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who have recently opposed Bush's plans regarding affirmative action, have not thrown their support behind pro-life programs.
It is becoming more evident that if Bush's fate in 2004 had not already been sealed by his plan to attack Iraq -- a plan which the majority of the world opposes -- a plan to overturn Roe versus Wade would erode his support among women.
Most women do not support the ruling of a predominantly male Supreme Court to decide what a woman may or may not do to her own body. Denying women access to abortions will lead to pro-choice rallies and give Democratic presidential hopefuls and Senate Democratic heavyweights more than enough ammunition needed to diminish Republican support in the coming election among the female public.
Clearly, the Bush government has not only been a death card to the environment but to the basic rights of women and worldwide funding for the practice. None of this has deterred the Bush administration from its drive to eliminate abortion "murders."
In the future, Bush should ask himself which murderers he should focus his attention on -- the patients, or those radicals who bomb abortion clinics and who shoot doctors who perform abortions?
Geoff Merrill
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing