Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Elections Aff
Elections Aff
Elections Aff................................................................................................................................................................................... .............1
McCain Will Win.............................................................................................................................................................................. ...........2
McCain will Win....................................................................................................................................................................................... ...3
Emission Cap Unpopular – GOP Base............................................................................................................................................. ............4
Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs........................................................................................................................................... ........5
Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs........................................................................................................................................... ........6
Permits Unpopular......................................................................................................................................................................... ..............7
Link Defense - General...................................................................................................................................................................... ..........8
A2: Energy Link...................................................................................................................................................................... ...................9
A2: Warming Link................................................................................................................................................................... .................10
A2: Independents link............................................................................................................................................................... ................11
A2: Aids Impact............................................................................................................................................................................. ...........12
A2: Overpop Impact........................................................................................................................................................... ......................13
A2: Overpop Impact........................................................................................................................................................... ......................14
A2: Soft Power.................................................................................................................................................................. .......................15
Lost Bad – Econ/Heg..................................................................................................................................................................... ............16
LOST Bad – Heg – Environment Restrictions....................................................................................................................... ....................17
A2: Military Exemptions Solve............................................................................................................................................................... ..18
LOST Bad – Heg/Terrorism/Prolif – Freedom of Action..................................................................................................... ......................19
A2: Arctic/Oil........................................................................................................................................................................ ...................20
A2: Environment...................................................................................................................................................................................... .21
A2: PSI.................................................................................................................................................................................. ...................22
A2: Lost Impacts – All................................................................................................................................................................... ...........23
A2: Turns Not Unique.......................................................................................................................................................................... .....24
1
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
McCain Will Win
McCain will win – several reasons
CBS News, 6/4/08
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml?source=mostpop_story)
The poll contains troubling signs for Obama as he looks to mobilize the Democratic Party behind him following his long and sometimes
bitter battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, however.
Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who
defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general
election.
McCain leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona senator
leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided.
Sixty-three percent of all voters - including more than half of Democratic primary voters - say the length of the Democratic primary battle
has hurt the Democratic nominee's chances. Just 27 percent say it has helped the nominee's cause.
cont…
McCain is seen as "very likely" to be an effective Commander-in-Chief by more registered voters than either Obama or Clinton. Thirty-
nine percent of those surveyed said McCain is "very likely" to be effective, versus 25 percent for Obama and 22 percent for Clinton.
However, a majority says it is at least "somewhat likely" any of the three candidates would be effective.
Mccain will win – hillary defectors, independents, red states and latin voters
Perce, 7/3/08 (Joseph, Editor @ Political Bull, http://www.politicalbull.net/why_i_believe_mccain_will_win_the_election.html)
Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November Election. According to a recent
article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent
of Democrats who defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama
in the general election".
The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votes among registered Independent voters.
Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latino vote and the vote from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that
Obama is making in-roads in the Red States, the numbers seem to prove otherwise.
Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have not voted for a Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years,
according to an article on the Washington Post.
The article states, "Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992),
Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000)."
Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of the Latino vote as well, as the Florida primary exemplifies (Despite the fact
that it was not counted).
Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons stated above, that McCain will win the 2008 election.
2
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
McCain will Win
Obama Will lose – Iraq flip flop dooms him – 3 reasons
Telegraph, 7/4/08
Senator Barack Obama has rushed to clarify his position on the Iraq War after he appeared to wobble on a commitment to withdraw US
ground troops within 16 months, a central plank of his candidacy.
The Democratic presidential nominee used a press conference to say that the timetable was not set in stone and that he would adjust his
plans based on conditions on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.
On his website, Mr Obama promises he "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of
Iraq within 16 months".
But he told journalists in North Dakota that those policies could be "refined" in the light of what he finds in Iraq.
"I've always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he
said.
"When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will
continue to refine my policies."
The comments were immediately seized upon by his rival, Republican Senator John McCain, a supporter of the Iraq War who has taunted
Mr Obama over his failure to visit Iraq for more than two years.
Brian Rogers, a spokesman for Mr McCain, said: “Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama’s
candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. Today, Barack Obama reversed that position
proving once again that his words do not matter.
"Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for
accepting John McCain’s principled stand on this critical national security issue.
"If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with General (David) Petraeus, he would have changed his position
long ago.”
The charge stung Mr Obama into a swift response. He held a second press conference just a few hours later to clarify his comments.
He accused the McCain camp of suggesting "we were changing our policy when we haven't".
"I've given no indication of a change in policy. I intend to end this war. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that
position. I am not searching for manoeuvering room with respect to that position," Mr Obama said.
The charge that he is changing his mind is toxic for three reasons.
It allows Mr McCain to argue that he, not Mr Obama, has a better understanding of what now needs to be done in Iraq.
Secondly, it gives Republicans evidence to use to depict Mr Obama as just another cynical politician prepared to change his position to win
votes.
Finally, any shift on Iraq risks alienating the left-wing of his own party, who have grown uneasy at some more moderate positions he has
struck in recent weeks.
3
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Emission Cap Unpopular – GOP Base
Warming Regulations alienate GOP Base
Greenwire, 5/1/07
There are several reasons for Republicans' lack of attention to global warming, analysts say: There is little apparent interest in the issue
among core Republican voters, and there is concern that an aggressive stance on climate might be perceived as tilting too far to the left.
But environmentalists say GOP candidates will eventually address the issue as they realize its importance to independent voters and some
Republicans. At least, they say, Republican candidates have not denied the reality of climate change.
"I just think the Republican candidates haven't developed their positions yet," said Jim O'Brien, a New Hampshire Republican and a
member of the Carbon Coalition, a group pressing candidates to address climate change. "They all think there is a problem, they just
haven't rolled out any plans."
The League of Conservation Voters' Navin Nayak said Republicans are going to be forced to prepare climate plans.
"All the Republicans are in a very different position than President Bush, they're going to need to engage on this issue," said Nayak,
director of the LCV Education Fund's Global Warming Project. "I don't think any of them are going to be in the same place that President
Bush was six years ago or where he is today."
Only McCain has given a speech focused largely on climate change. In the speech in Washington last week, McCain largely endorsed
legislation he has been promoting for several years, calling for the imposition of a mandatory cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide
emissions. Emphasis on incentives
Other major candidates, when asked about the issue, have said that it could best be addressed through incentives and technological
development aimed at curbing emissions, rather than through government mandates.
The Republican front-runners -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney -- have several times touted
the importances of weaning the country off foreign oil. Others -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy
Thompson and potential candidate Newt Gingrich -- have taken a similar position.
"What they're talking about is solutions to global warming, just phrased differently," O'Brien said.
Brownback, in an interview with Greenwire, said he did not know if an aggressive stance on climate change could hurt a GOP candidate,
but said Republican voters oppose the use of regulations to deal with the problem.
"People are really questioning the use of hard caps and carbon taxes," Brownback said.
Asked whether he thought McCain's aggressive stance on climate would hurt him, Brownback replied, "I don't know if you could say that. I
know people who are commenting and talking who are more against that than for it."
McCain himself told reporters he was unsure how the issue would play in the primaries.
But University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said he has no doubt the issue will play poorly.
"Republican activists, for the most part, don't believe in global warming," Sabato said. "They identify it with Al Gore -- whom they hate --
with liberals, with Hollywood."
4
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs
Public Opposes Cap and trade – recent vote proves times have changed
Human Events Online, 6/12/08
Four and a half years ago, the U.S. Senate rejected a global-warming bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
by a decisive 43-55 vote. After the vote, McCain said, "We've lost a battle today, but we'll win over time because climate change is real.
And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time. You can only win by marshaling public opinion."
But if the recent Senate vote on the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill is any indication, public opinion is moving away from
McCain's 2003 effort and Al Gore's current cadre of climate-change alarmists.
After the vote last week, Lieberman claimed 54 senators had supported the bill (although only 48 bothered to actually vote to move the bill
forward). A close examination of post-debate statements reveals that support for the cap-and-tax bill was the virtually unchanged from
2003. Of those 54 senators who Lieberman cited, 11 released statements indicating that they could not vote for the bill on final passage.
Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-
Ark.), John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and James Webb (D-Va.) sent a letter to the Democrat leadership saying
they could not "support final passage" of the bill "in its current form."
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) released a statement saying, "It is clear by the result that serious modifications to this bill are necessary for it to
clear the legislative hurdles before it."
Even McCain, who has promised to implement an economically devastating cap-and-tax regime as president, issued a statement clarifying
that he "could not support the legislation's final passage."
With no measurable progress on the "most important issues we face in the world today," as Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is fond of saying, one
is left wondering what happened. The simple answer is that the debate is no longer one-sided. The soaring rhetoric of radical
environmentalists, liberals and some moderates is no longer gospel. It can and should be challenged with facts about the economy and the
immense pain Americans would feel if such a bill were enacted.
Despite the resounding defeat, proponents predict success in 2009. Fortunately the American people are becoming aware that job losses,
rising prices and falling incomes are not something Congress should be mandating.
5
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs
Opponents spin cap and trade as massive hike in energy costs
Washington Week, 5/21/08
Gasoline-Price Concerns May Undermine Lieberman-Warner Debate
Some Republican lawmakers and industry segments are maneuvering to use high gasoline and diesel prices as a foil to undercut CO2 cap-
and-trade legislation that they say would drive up the cost of transportation fuels. Industry sources suggest that political pressure may be
increasing as the lines between energy and climate legislation begin to blur because of high fuel prices.
Cost concerns are not new in pointing out the shortcomings of a carbon mitigation plan put forth by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and
John Warner (R-VA). But new energy legislation principally focused on lowering energy costs provides opponents of major climate change
measures an opportunity to position climate change legislation as a detriment to efforts to lower energy prices.
6
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Permits Unpopular
Even if emission cuts have support - Cap and trade unpopular
Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA,
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Because this subject is somewhat complex, respondents were taken through a series of questions. First they were introduced to the subject
with the following statement:
If this bill (McCain-Lieberman legislation) were to pass, each large company would be allowed to emit a limited amount of greenhouse
gasses. A controversial aspect of the bill is that it allows companies to buy and sell their allowances to each other. The idea is that it will
cost some companies much more than other companies to change business practices to lower their emissions. If companies with low costs
could reduce their emissions further, they could sell their emission allowances to other companies who would save money by buying those
allowances. Here are some arguments on these issues. Please select whether you find them convincing or not.
They were then presented a series of pro and con arguments. The con arguments were found convincing by large majorities. Seventy-seven
percent found convincing (45% very convincing) the argument that
“It is just not right for companies to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases. All companies should have to reduce their emissions.”
Seventy-seven percent also found convincing (22% very) the argument, “Requiring all companies to lower their emission levels the same
amount will force them to adopt new technologies that may be expensive in the short run but will be economically beneficial in the long
run.” This is consistent with the popular view (discussed above) that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will ultimately benefit the
economy.
At the same time though, majorities--albeit much more modest ones--found the pro arguments convincing. Fifty-five percent found
convincing (14% very) that “If companies are not allowed to buy and sell their emission allowances, the costs of lowering emissions will
be substantially higher than presently estimated for the average American household.” Similarly, 53% found convincing (11% very) the
argument that “If we do not let companies buy and sell emission allowances, this would be unfair to companies for whom it is more
expensive to lower their emissions, and overall would make it more costly to reduce emissions.”
Finally, asked, “Now, having considered these arguments, do you favor or oppose permitting companies to buy and sell their allowances to
emit greenhouse gases?” 62% said they opposed the idea while 34% said they favored it.
7
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Link Defense - General
Public opinion changing – support for alternate energy and emission limits are declining
Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08
The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about global warming but the
reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but telling shift in public opinion.
Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy and environmental
problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate change.
None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media and government studies
for considerable time.
However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, two news outlets that are
hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning basic tenets of climate change philosophy
indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way.
Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on the newsstand
magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site.
In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming" that the popular
policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation and spur non-polluting technologies is now
doubtful.
"Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists,
scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late," the
Times said.
Permits and emission restrictions declining in popularity – warming no longer key issue
Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08
These arguments against the environmental value of biofuels and the efficacy of mandatory emissions control measures are not new and
they face counter-challenges from environmental circles but the fact that they are beginning to percolate in the mainstream US media is
noteworthy.
In addition, a new survey by the [7]John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress at New York University suggested popular concern
about global warming was beginning to ebb.
According to the centre, the number of people who said they were "very worried" or "somewhat worried" about climate change fell from
70% in 2006 to 67% this year.
As reported by Environment & Energy Daily, the centre's survey also found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming
requires immediate legislative action also declined over the same two-year period, from 77% to 69%.
To be sure, these are not major shifts in public sentiment, but the survey results and mainstream media challenges to what once were sacred
cows of US environmental policy suggest that the issue may have peaked.
8
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
9
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Warming Link
Warming not a key issue – its declining in public importance
Environment and Energy Daily, 4/2/08
The percentage of Americans who said global warming requires immediate attention also declined over the two-year period, from 77 to 69
percent, raising a potential public opinion barrier for Congress as it considers major climate change legislation.
"Something's not getting through to the public" about climate change, said study author Paul Light, a professor at NYU's Robert F. Wagner
School of Public Service.
"You almost need a Ph.D. to understand the cap-and-trade proposals floating around. Most Americans would guess that the term is about
baseball, not climate change," Light said.
Still, the poll found that the number of Americans who were "very worried" about global warming jumped seven points to 39 percent in
2008. Those that called the issue only "somewhat" worrying sent the overall global warming numbers in decline, however.
Light emphasized that the rise in the "very worrying" percentage still was the lowest rate of increase of the four issues studied, indicating
the issue has much less traction than the others.
Partisan spin means public will divide – prefer our evidence – it assumes how debate influences
opinion
Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americans-
world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm
The lowest level of support for taking action was found in a September 2005 Washington Post poll which asked, ““Do you think global
warming is an urgent problem that requires immediate government action, or a longer-term problem that requires more study before
government action is taken?” Only 41% chose the postion that global warming is an urgent problem that requires immediate government
action, while 47% chose the position that “a longer-term problem that requires more study before government action is taken.” [28]
However the question forced the respondent to choose between two statements consisting of two assertions one about the level of urgency
and the other about the nature of the response. An assessment that the problem is “urgent” is coupled with “immediate action,” while the
assessment that the problem is “longer-term” is coupled with “study before government action is taken.” Based on other responses it
appears likely that the more salient assertions for respondents were likely about the level of urgency, not the response. Other polls do
suggest that most Americans do not perceive the problem as “urgent,” but a majority does favor taking some action and actually rejects the
notion of only doing research at this point. However it should be noted that in the current environment Americans may often be confronted
by parties that are presented the kind of polarized views presented in the poll question and that in this context the public tends to divide.
10
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Independents link
Energy Independence can’t unite swing voters – top priorities are too diverse
PR Newswire, 5/3/07
Quite the contrary appears to be true. The candidates at U4prez.com are asked to answer a few questions before building their platforms.
One of those questions is, "What is the most important issue to you?" What we find is that no single issue, or group of related issues,
defines the group. The top issue is Illegal immigration, with just eleven percent responding that this was the most important issue. In
second place is a tie between education reform and the war in Iraq, with both garnering just seven percent. Contrasting this, thirty-six
percent of Democrats declare either the Iraq war or Health care as top issues. While Republicans appear to side with a small minority of
independents, with twelve percent declaring illegal immigration their top issue, national security was at the top with thirty percent citing the
war on terror, or national security as the number one issue.
The breakdown in issues of importance is so diverse that no single strategy would appear to have a chance at gathering widespread support
among these voters.
Issues of important to independent voters: Illegal immigration 11% Education 7% War in Iraq 7% Health Care 5% Bi-partisanship 3
% Energy independence 3%
11
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Aids Impact
1. Gag rule isn’t applied to HIV/AIDS initiatives
Newsday 03. (“Going global in AIDS battle”, April 30, lexis)
Fleischer said the White House would insist on a provision prohibiting groups and governments from using AIDS grants to
perform or promote abortion. But he said it would not demand tougher language barring such entities from receiving grants
even if they promise not to use the money for abortions.
This tougher language - known as the "Mexico City" rule for the city in which it was first promulgated by President Ronald
Reagan - generally guides the distribution of U.S. family planning funds under the Bush administration. But Fleischer said
the administration is "not expanding the Mexico City policy to cover this HIV-AIDS program."
Bush originally unveiled his AIDS initiative in his State of the Union speech in January. It calls for spending $15 billion over
the next five years on treatment and prevention programs in 12 African and two Caribbean nations where the disease is
rampant. Much of the money would be spent on effective but expensive anti-retroviral drug therapy.
12
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
family planning already exists – attempts to prevent population growth only worsen the problem
Urban in 1
Jessica Leann, Constructing Blame: Overpopulation, Environmental Security and International Relations,
http://www.wid.msu.edu/resources/papers/pdf/WP273.pdf
Analysis through the lens of intersectionality suggests that whether or not reproductive technologies are regarded as liberating or
oppressive depends upon one’s class, race, sexual preference, religion and national origin (Tong 1998:231). In many cases, technologies
considered liberating among middle and upper class white women in the US have been used as tools of social control among
“other” populations. Access to safe and voluntary abortion, sterilization and contraceptive services must be part of broader, culturally
sensitive health service programs for women and their families – women’s health must be the priority, not population control. Moreover,
policies attempting to halt overpopulation through fertility control have not solved environmental problems. In fact, despite the millions of
dollars spent on fertility-reduction based family-planning services, ecological damage, poverty and even population growth continues
because “false perceptions of the problem lead to false solutions” (Shiva 1993:2).
13
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Overpop Impact
Gag rule is toothless – pro-abortion groups can still receive funding via huge loopholes
Freddoso 03. (David, political reporter for Evans and Novak Inside Report and Capital Hill commentator,
“Abortion Groups Can Circumvent Mexico City Policy”, Human Events Online, April 17, lexis)
International family planning groups have discovered a huge loophole in the policy that is supposed to prevent them
from getting U.S. tax dollars. The "Mexico City" policy-a Reagan directive revived by President Bush to keep foreign aid out of the hands of abortion providers and
promoters-has developed such enormous loopholes it is now practically meaningless, say congressional pro-lifers. Last October, ten conservative
congressmen, including Reps. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) and Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.), decried the ineffectual policy. The congressmen signed a letter to the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) citing a grant of $65 million to a program run by the Population Council, the group that holds the
patent on the abortion drug RU-486. A spokesman for USAID-the government's main foreign aid arm-agreed that abortion groups, while following the
strict letter of the Mexico City rule, can continue to collect government money without substantially changing their
activities. The Mexico City policy forbids U.S. foreign aid designated for "family planning" from going to groups that provide or promote abortions. However, the policy does not
prevent abortion groups from collecting other kinds of federal grants. Population Action International (PAI) has published a 16-page booklet
instructing groups on how to circumvent the Mexico City policy (it is available on that PAI's website). PAI, which says it does not receive government funding, seeks
to promote international family-planning NGOs-helping them to help themselves to federal money. Their booklet, "What You Need to Know about the Global Gag Rule Restrictions: the Unofficial Guide,"
if a group says it does
explains that simply by altering its stated mission from "family planning" to other terms that cover the same activities a group can get U.S. tax dollars. For example,
"birth spacing" instead of "family planning," or if it refers to condom distribution as "HIV prevention," it ceases to
be a "family planning" operation and falls outside the Mexico City policy. Reagan's Original Intent The booklet also notes that while groups that receive
family planning funds cannot lobby foreign governments for certain abortion laws, "eligibility for USAID support is not jeopardized merely by participating in
research that others may use in advancing abortion law reform." Thus abortion groups can continue to receive federal
funds while advocating, referring and performing abortions overseas. "I think that you're saying is very true. It's all about how you
package it," PAI spokeswoman Kimberly Cline told HUMAN EVENTS when asked about her group's booklet. USAID spokesman Alfonso Aguilar agreed with PAI's analysis, telling HUMAN EVENTS
that these groups can continue to collect tax dollars by repackaging their family planning activities as "AIDS prevention" or
"child health" activities. "Yes, I would say that's right," he said. "The Mexico City policy applies only to family planning funding." Last week, conservatives called on the Bush administration to
correct the situation by strengthening the Mexico City rules. They are especially worried that funds from the President's planned $15 billion program to alleviate AIDS in
Africa might go to abortion groups. "If they want to effectively implement the aid needed in Africa, then they're going to have to close the gap on the Mexico City language and extend it to
include all humanitarian aid," said Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council. President Reagan first implemented the Mexico City policy in a 1984. President Clinton cancelled it. President Bush
reinstated it in 2001. Meanwhile, social conservatives in the Senate scored a major victory when legislation to fund the new Africa AIDS/HIV program-sponsored by Senators Joseph Biden (D.-Del.) and Dick
Lugar (R.-Ind.)-was sent back to the drawing board, instead winning a committee vote. As proposed, it would have overridden not only the Mexico City policy, but also a law authored by Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-
N.C.) that forbids the use of tax dollars to directly fund abortions abroad.
Alternate causality: Studies show that Africans do not go to clinics for family planning because of
social stigma.
Caldwell and Caldwell 2002.
(John, Emeritus Prof. of Demography and Visiting Fellow, and Pat, Centre Visitor, Health Transition Centre, National Center for Epidemiology and
Population Health, the Australian National University. Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 33, No. 1, Family Planning Programs Century. Mar., 2002, pp. 76-86.
JSTOR.)
One solution to the problems of service density and motivation has been identified as social marketing, although an
assessment of such programs concluded that it was difficult to determine whether they had been successful (Phillips et al.
1998). Beegle (1994) concluded from her study of the situation in Tanzania that levels of contraceptive use could be raised if
pharmacies dispensed pills and injectables. Caldwell et al. (1992) reported of Nigeria that the availability of pills, injectables,
condoms, and foams at pharmacies and simple medical stores had raised levels of contraceptive practice substantially even
though the costs were three to five times those charged by the clinics. The anonymous nature of the market, the fact that
one could purchase a method privately, and the “no-questions-asked” approach resulted in the supplying of a much
wider clientele. The client usually took the injectables to a private nurse to administer. The situation in Ado-Ekiti was
fortuitous, and the small distributors did not have to bother about dealing with wholesalers, let alone imports. The same effect
could be achieved, however, were the national family planning program to provide contraceptive supplies to such outlets.
Whether the contraceptives are available through clinics or medical stores, higher levels of use can be attained by having a wide range of
contraceptives available and having them always in stock (compare with lain 1989, generally; Caldwell and Caidwell 1992, on
Bangladesh). By 1994, 15 percent of contraceptives in Zambia were being obtained privately (Marindo et al. 1998).
14
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Soft Power
Squo solves – USFG is already endorsing safe abortions internationally through the WHO
Packer 05. (Sarah, IPAS Policy Coordinator, “Danger Ahead”,
http://www.ipas.org/publications/en/DANGER_E05_en.pdf)
Countries also implicitly endorse the right to health when they provide financial resources to international
and national agencies that promote or provide health care. The United States is one of the largest funders of
WHO, which recognizes the right to health as part of its organizational constitution (WHO, no date). Adolescent
health is a major focus for WHO and their guidelines on provision of safe, legal abortions state that attention
should be given to the special needs of adolescents (WHO, 2003).
Countries don’t model poor U.S. women’s rights policies – CSW proves
CWGL 05. (“Beijing + 10”, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, March 11,
http://www.cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/policy/b10/index.html)
Although the US delegation did not have the public support of any member state, they had refused to join the consensus
that had formed in support of the Draft as it had been issued by the Bureau of the Commission on the Status of Women. In a
remarkable show of solidarity, countries across all regions have resisted US pressure to break consensus, and have
stood together in support of the full range of women’s human rights as laid out in the Beijing Platform.
15
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
Lost Bad – Econ/Heg
LOST Crushes Economy and Power Projection – Status Quo solves all your offense– undermines
Innovation in multiple high tech fields – doesn’t promote freedom of navigation or power projection –
only Naval force solves – which is limited by law of the sea
Smith, 10/4/07 (Fred, Head Competitive Enterprise Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony)
Some treaty advocates argue that it would help ensure passage for American shipping. This point is moot. Irrespective of any treaty text,
only the U.S. Navy can guarantee free ocean transit in situations where nations have both the incentive and ability to interfere. That
remains true under the U.S.'s status as a non- party to the treaty. Were we to ratify LOST, the Law of the Sea Tribunal might declare
such action unlawful. As noted, the treaty's best provisions those covering navigation largely codify existing customary international law.
Its worst provisions those creating the seabed regulatory regime would discourage future minerals production as well as punish
entrepreneurship in related fields involving technology, software, and intellectual property that have an ocean application. Since
technology often has multiple uses, it would also slow innovation generally.
Ratification Causes Hostile Foreign Rulings – Undermining US Economy and Power Projection –
Status Quo Solves Your Offense
CTFP, 10/27/07 (Chatanooga Times Free Press, Copley News)
The Bush administration argues that the United States needs the treaty to protect U.S. interests in the world's oceans and to ensure that the
U.S. Navy can go where it needs to go. The problem with that argument is that if the United States signs and ratifies the treaty, America
will be bound to abide by its decisions.
Based on U.S. experience in other international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, decisions will usually be contrary to
U.S. security and economic interests. The U.S. Navy can already go wherever it needs to go, and it should remain that way.
16
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
LOST Bad – Heg – Environment Restrictions
LOST Environmental Restrictions Crush Naval Effectiveness
Gaffney, 10/9/07 (Frank, President, Center Security Policy, Washington Times)
Fortunately, a necessary corrective was offered the next day by another distinguished retired four-star, Adm. James "Ace" Lyons. In an
article in The Washington Times' Commentary pages, the former Pacific Fleet commander in chief declared: "It is inconceivable to this
naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and
unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST."
Adm. Lyons appreciates a reality apparently overlooked by those promoting the Navy's official line on LOST: The treaty entails obligations
that are at odds with the U.S. sea services' routine operations; involve sweeping commitments to protect the "marine environment" the
Navy will almost certainly contravene; and institute several tribunals to prosecute complaints that arise in these or other areas.
Of all institutions, the Navy should be alive to the dangers that such a treaty entails. After all, the service's civilian leader, Secretary Donald
Winter, for one has expressed grave concerns about the impact domestic environmentalists and their litigiousness currently have on Navy
and Marine Corps' operations.
Such challenges are likely to pale by comparison with the edicts handed down by multilateral tribunals whose deciding votes are, in every
instance, selected by international bureaucrats (in the case of one arbitral panel, by the U.N. secretary-general himself). A recent paper
written by Dr. Jeremy Rabkin for the American Enterprise Institute under the provocative title, "Do We Really Want to Place the U.S. Navy
Under International Judicial Supervision?" makes clear that, by so doing, we would open ourselves to expanded attacks via "Lawfare" - the
technique of using treaties, courts and international law as an asymmetric weapon against us:
"It is estimated that the United States has more practicing lawyers than all other countries put together. Separation of powers and an active,
independent judiciary invite challenges to decisions of officials in the executive branch, just as we scrutinize and challenge so many other
institutions in our society. What that means is that it is much harder for the United States to shrug off international legal claims than it may
be for more centralized or repressive countries such as China."
Arbitrators will apply environmental restrictions to navy despite military activities exemption –
and independently they will enforce on civilian contractors – causing the same effect – this crushes
power projections and will force inevitable withdrawal from the treaty later – turning all the negs
offense
Gaffney, 10/9/07 (Frank, President, Center Security Policy, Washington Times)
Faced with this worrisome prospect, the Navy's lawyers blithely contend the Law of the Sea Treaty permits "military activities" to be
exempted from the mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms. On this basis, they believe the U.S. can continue with impunity practices
flatly prohibited by various treaty provisions. (These include, for example, requirements that the seas be used and marine research be
performed exclusively for peaceful purposes; submarines transit territorial waters on the surface; and no collection of intelligence take
place within those waters).
What would happen if, despite our protests, the treaty's arbitral panels wind up being used as other LOST enthusiasts clearly intend, as a
means of interfering with the Navy's activities? How about if the arbitrators assert their jurisdiction and judge the Navy - or perhaps, as
Adm. Lyons suggested, civilian contractors essential to equipping its forces or their logistics - to be violating one or more provisions of the
accord? A uniformed lawyer recently had a remarkable, if wholly impracticable, answer: "We'll abrogate the treaty."
Could it be that the Navy's official stance on LOST is less an accurate indication of the merits of that treaty than a measure of the
increasingly parlous state of the nation's sea service? In a characteristically insightful Sept. 21 New York Times op-ed, best-selling author
and visiting professor at Annapolis, Robert Kaplan wrote: "China['s]... production and acquisition of submarines is now 5 times that of
America's Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet
the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across-the-board. In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic
missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is 'sea denial': dissuading American carrier
strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like."
The fact Adm. Ace Lyons felt compelled to do the almost unthinkable - break ranks with Navy colleagues of decades duration - is a shot
across the proverbial bow: Those in the Senate tempted to justify their inattention to the details of the Law of the Sea Treaty on the grounds
that the military "wants" it now must fulfill their constitutional responsibility to provide rigorous quality control on this accord. If they do
so, they are bound to act as Ronald Reagan did and reject this defective treaty, sparing both the Navy and the nation its negative
repercussions.
17
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Military Exemptions Solve
Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For
example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the
ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.
Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such
activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other
parties or dispute resolution bodies - particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an
"environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.
The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard. The military can also be adversely affected by
the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment
from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes
involved with supplying the military.
18
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
LOST Bad – Heg/Terrorism/Prolif – Freedom of Action
LOST Crushes Naval Power Projection and Interdiction – Causing WMD Spread and
Undermining War on Terror
Lyons, 10/5/07 (Retired Admiral, James, Commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to
the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, Washington Times)
The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I
can site many maritime operations - from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine
intelligence-gathering programs - that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from
encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to
this treaty.
In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval
intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be
subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations - a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.
US Ratification Crushes Power Projection and WMD Interdiction – Status Quo Solves Your
Offense
Buchanon, 10/13/07 (Pat, Hes pretty fucking famous, Pitt Tribune Review)
While the treaty assures the right of peaceful passage on the high seas and through narrows that are territorial waters, we already have that
right under international law.
"It is inconceivable to this naval officer," writes Adm. James Lyons, former commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, "why the Senate
would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency
that would be created by the ratification of LOST.
U.S. warships today inspect vessels suspected of carrying nuclear contraband. To do this, post-LOST, the Navy would have to get
permission from an authority composed of states most of which have an almost unbroken record of voting against us in the United Nations.
19
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Arctic/Oil
Status Quo Solves US Arctic Claims – Ratification Causes US to Lose -
CTFP, 10/27/07 (Chatanooga Times Free Press, Copley News)
One of the silliest arguments is that the United States needs the treaty to guard against Russian claims to the North Pole and its oil riches. If
the United States ratifies the treaty, America would have to accept the treaty tribunal's decision.
Even though the United States already has valid claims to the North Pole region under the Doctrine of Discovery, the chances of the treaty
bureaucrats ruling for the United States against Russia are about 1 in 155.
Gains in Energy Reserves Swamped by Lawsuit Liabilities – Prefer our comparative evidence
Ridenour, 10/4/07 (David, National Center for Public Policy Research, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/sea_law)
But opponents of the treaty say signing on to international laws means you also have to abide by them -- and can be sued if you don't.
David Ridenour is with the National Center for Public Policy Research.
DAVID RIDENOUR: If we are not viewed as complying with some of the environmental standards that are laid out in the Law of the Sea
treaty, environmental activists can actually take it to U.S. domestic court.
Ridenour says any gains in energy reserves would quickly be swamped by liabilities. The U.S. accounts for the majority of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions -- he says that makes it the obvious target for lawsuits claiming damages to the ocean ecosystem.
20
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Environment
US Ratification Undermines Environment – Causes Drilling rights to go to other nations with
worse environmental standards
Scally, 9/24/07 (William, Congressional Quarterly, http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002591199.html)
“Environmental implications could be exacerbated by the ISA’s authority to apportion drilling and mining rights to other nations who may
be less scrupulous than American companies in complying with environmental standards and practices this country holds dear,” Gaffney
testified.
21
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: PSI
Getting More Countries on Board PSI Not Key – GICNT solves
Richardson, 10/11/07 (Michael, New Zealand Herald, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies)
Nor does China's non-involvement in the security initiative signify that it is unconcerned about the spread of weapons of mass destruction
and their means of delivery. Such weapons include chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons.
China has twice joined the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council in imposing sanctions on Iran and demanding that it
halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activities, despite Tehran's insistence that its work is peaceful. Beijing also condemned
the nuclear explosion carried out by its nominal ally North Korea last October.
Indeed, not long after this test China joined Russia, the US and 10 other countries in signing a statement of principles that commits them to
a series of individual and collective actions to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Unlike the PSI, a US-led project launched by President George W. Bush in 2003, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
(GICNT) was proposed jointly by Russia and the US in July last year.
Beijing is a founding member, able to help shape its evolution as more countries (at least 60 so far) join.
Law of the Sea isn’t the Vital Internal Link – Fears of Undermining North Korea Talks Prevent
Joining PSI
Richardson, 10/11/07 (Michael, New Zealand Herald, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies)
According to the US, more than 80 countries now participate in the security initiative in one way or another. But China, India, Indonesia
and Malaysia remain wary of joining, partly because the US has not yet ratified the UN law of the sea treaty.
This raises concerns that the initiative may be used in ways that are contrary to international law, although there is no evidence of any such
breach so far. Moreover, the initiative is a voluntary association. Participating countries are not obliged to halt a weapons of mass
destruction shipment even if asked to do so by another member.
The main reason China will not join the PSI is that it fears this would prompt a North Korean walkout from the six-party talks to defuse the
North Korean nuclear crisis. The talks are chaired by China but South Korea, too, has shied away from joining the PSI for the same reason
as Beijing.
22
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Lost Impacts – All
Customary International Law Already Solves All The Benefits of LOS Ratification
Goldsmith and Rabkin, 7/2/07 (Jack, Law Prof @ Harvard, Jeremy, Law Prof @ George Mason, Washington Post)
Supporters note that many of the treaty's "freedom of the seas" provisions favor U.S. interests. But the United States already receives the
benefits of these provisions because, as Negroponte and England acknowledged, they are "already widely accepted in practice." They
maintain that ratifying the convention would nonetheless provide "welcome legal certainty." In recent years, however, the United States has
not received much legal certainty from international tribunals dominated by non-American judges, and what it has received has not been
very welcome. There is little reason to expect different results from these tribunals.
President Bush invokes a different rationale for ratifying the convention, arguing that it would "give the United States a seat at the table
when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." What this really means is that American views of the law of the
sea, even on issues related to national security, could be outvoted by a majority in an international forum. How can this make us safer?
Your Impacts Are Empirically False – Supporters Have Been Crying Wolf for 20 Years
Bandow, 7/31/07 (Doug, Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance, American Spectator)
The LOST lobby issued a profusion of hysterical warnings of impending chaos and violence on the high seas, but nothing happened. Life
went on as usual. No one other than the transies noticed the absence of a ratified LOST. However, internationalist goo-goos never rest and
State Department employees act like moths around a light when they near a treaty. So President George H.W. Bush began negotiations to
"fix" LOST, a process completed by the usual suspects in the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed
success in producing a new and improved variant of LOST, and the rush began: Washington signed as a cascade of ratifications brought the
treaty into effect, leading to demands for formal American assent.
23
SDI ‘08
Elections Aff
A2: Turns Not Unique
Our Turns are Unique – US Ratification is Key
Gaffney, 10/2/07 (Frank, Washington Times, President Center Security Policy)
To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. If the United States accedes
to LOST, however, it is predictable that the treaty's agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American
interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations promulgated by this and other U.N. entities; and advance
inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.
Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan declined to submit our sovereignty to the United Nations and rejected the Law of the Sea
Treaty. If anything, there are even more compelling reasons today to prevent the U.N.'s big power grab.
24