From email@example.com Fri Nov 3 14:39:57 2000
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:42:57 -0600 (CST)
Gore = Anti-Choice
From Gore's Broken Promises Archive, <votenader.com/brokenpromise/brokenpromisesarchive.html>
2 November 2000
The following are taken from the Gore's Broken Promises Archive,
The four enclosed are: Gore's real stance on "pro-choice" (perhaps
Most Surprising to many people); broken promises for gay rights;
broken promise that "health care should be a right, not a privildege";
scores of deaths due to lax FDA enforcement under Clinton/Gore watch.
for more examples.
#4 SIGNING A FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT
In "Putting People First", Clinton and Gore promised to sign a Freedom
of Choice Act, in order to "ensure that a woman's right to choose is
not jeopardized by a Supreme Court reversal or limitation of Roe v.
Wade." It didn't happen, in part because Clinton and Gore refused to
fight for it. As Fred Barnes reported in New Republic, Clinton and
Gore "made no effort to broker the dispute that derailed the Freedom
of Choice Act" in the summer of 1993. Barnes explains that this
Gore had only 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000
to go back and fix this -- not enough time, apparently, for poor Gore!
The following may expalin why..
wasn't surprising: Clinton and Gore always try to reap the benefits of
their position in favor of reproductive freedom without risking much
politically. As Bill Bradley noted during his fight for the
Democratic nomination, Gore has flip-flopped on a women's right to
choose, and long tried to conceal the fact. In fact, AS A
CONGRESSMAN, GORE COMPILED A SUBSTANTIAL ANTI-CHOICE RECORD, voting
for the Hyde Amendment that banned federal funding for abortions for
poor women, and to deny federal funding to hospitals and clinics that
Of course if you're poo then no money = no abortion, so this
is tantamous to anti-arotion for poor women. Even Republican
believe in abortoins for rich women, though they seldom admit it -- in
a rare moment of honesty "anti-abortion" Quayle admitted when he
ran that if it were a relative of his who wanted
to make such a choice he would "understand". So the differences
between Republicans and Gore rae, as the prevoius essay
more eloquently shows, are between abortoins only for the rich (Bush)
or mostly for hte Rich and well-off but not the workign class/poor.
#11 - Gays in the Military
Throughout the '92 campaign, candidates Clinton and Gore pledged to
end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. In
Putting People First, they promised to "repeal the ban on gays and
lesbians from military or foreign service." That unqualified promise
was broken almost as soon as Clinton and Gore met resistance from
military leaders (though it was known all along that the military
opposed ending the ban). The administration ended up accepting an
awful compromise, the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" charade that HAS
LED TO THE DISCHARGE OF 67% MORE gay and lesbian troops than were
being discharged under the previous policy! As columnist Bob Herbert
put it plainly in the New York Times, "He didn't fight, he caved."
Equally telling are the words of Tom Stoddard, director of the
Campaign for Military Service: "He raised this issue as a matter of
principle. You can't simply split the difference on matters of
#13 UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
During the '92 campaign, Clinton and Gore assailed the Bush
Administration for lacking a universal health care plan. Putting
People First rightly noted that the United States "is the only
advanced country in the world without a national health care plan"
and promised that "in the first year of a Clinton-Gore
administration, that will change." Though they tried to keep this
promise, their [Exceedingly generous of Nader to call this secret
meetings with HMOs behind-closed-doors, locking out grassroots
advocates, "Trying" to keep a promise -HB] health care plan catered to
the very corporate interests that caused the problem in the first
place. Hillary Clinton's health care task force worked in secret,
and spent more time talking to HMOs and insurance companies than to
physicians and ordinary Americans. The result was a terribly
complex, heavily bureaucratic approach to health care that was
defeated and never resurrected. Clinton and Gore have taken a
piecemeal approach to health care ever since, and the United States
remains the only Western democracy in the world that doesnt
guarantee health care to its citizens. Eight years after Clinton
and Gore wrote health care should be a right, not a privilege,
around ten million more Americans are without health care coverage.
_Ralph Naders Statement on Universal Health Care_
NADER SAYS CLINTON-GORE PRESIDES OVER DETERIORATION
OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
CHICO, CA, OCT 23-Ralph Nader charged today that the Clinton-Gore
Administration has presided over the deterioration of the Food and
Drug Administration, once considered the world's premiere drug-safety
Today, FDA approves drugs that would have been rejected in the past
because of doubts about their safety or effectiveness," Nader said.
"As a result American lives are at risk."
Nader cited the drug Rezulin as a prime example of problems at FDA.
This spring, Rezulin was taken off the market after causing hundreds
of cases of severe liver toxicity and at least 63 deaths. Rezulin was
the FOURTH drug pulled off the market from among those approved in
1997. Only one other time since 1970 were as many as two FDA-approved
drugs were taken off the market. [Emph. added --HB]
Nader said a confidential survey conducted in 1998, FDA medical
officers-the physicians responsible for primary reviews of new drug
applications-identified more than two dozen drugs they believed were
mistakenly approved. The physicians reported stepped up pressure from
superiors, Congress and the drug industry to approve a high proportion
of new drugs.
"Not surprisingly, the drug industry is celebrating the lax approach
at the Clinton-Gore FDA," Nader said. "In surveys, drug and medical
device industry executives say they have a more positive attitude
about FDA than at any previous time."
Nader said the so-called FDA Modernization Act of 1997 and other
legislative acts have seriously weakened the FDA's regulatory
capacity, permitting the manufacturers of many medical devices to rely
on private, for-profit companies instead of FDA to review their
application. This process, he said, has reduced the evidence required
to prove safety and has allowed drug companies to promote drugs for
purposes for which they were not approved.
Nader said FDA needs new leadership that will refuse to compromise
public safety to accommodate industry demands. He also urged repeal of
the FDA Modernization Act and other deregulatory measures that have
weakened the agency.