FRC Vs. Laura Bush
Family Research Council is a little honked off at Laura Bush, who said (according to FRC) in a recent CNN interview that condoms were "absolutely essential," and told the reporter off-camera that she has "no problem if the Democratic Congress waives a key pro-abstinence legislative requirement."
FRC thinks such statements by the First Lady give their organization a black eye, since they support that "key pro-abstinence legislative requirement," which forces one-third of the monies budgeted for fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa and other third-world areas to be used for promotion of abstinence - which, of course, has been an abject failure so far among the world's poor (not to mention in our own high schools), since sex is pretty much the only cheap amusement they can afford.
"Condom distribution does little to combat the spread of many STD's," claims FRC, "and condom distribution programs are more designed to line the pockets of International Planned Parenthood than to prevent disease."
Yeah; they're making tons by giving away
all those rubbers to people who can barely afford roofs over their heads ... and which, incidentally, do
"combat the spread" of most STD's incredibly well. In fact, they're better than 98% effective at it, when used properly ... which means with a minimum of instruction. ("See? You roll it on like this, and if it slips off or breaks, just put on another one.")
And besides, what would Laura Bush know? After all, it's not like she's "into" knowledge, or ever worked as a librarian or anything ...
I'm not sure how many billions of dollars that "one-third" amounts to, but one thing's fore sure: It's money - tax money - YOUR
money - down the drain.