Another example would be the millions of women in Africa, where economic circumstances require their husbands to travel long distances for extended periods of time to find work, who are infected with HIV as a result of their husbands "harmless" visits with infected prostitutes while away from home.

Perhaps the real crime is that the husbands didn't use condoms?

It's not the sex between adults that is the crime, it is the negligence that enabled the transfer of HIV.

What's the point of holding politicians to a promise if we don't think what they've promised to do is the best policy

- sirdook

It's a fair point. As I said in the last sentence: "Much of that will, I presume, depend on what their alternative is."

- GG

I'm not sure we need to wait for the alternative. The original promise was based on something reviewable and public. She is now advocating for something that is not-so-public.

I'd give her a lot more leeway if she stated, for instance, that she wants to move away from a previous promise of using the AFM because she would feel better having a policy that can be modified ONLY through legislative means.

But, she didn't. She wants to make policy via a process and with information hidden from us. That is what needs to be rejected. Forget the argument of using the AFM or not. What I find offensive is that she wants to replace something reviewable (publicly available) with something hidden. That is what is reprehensible.

-- only used the word 'torture' once. And that was to quote GG.

Your last post was a pleasure to read. Thank you.