Conference turris::womannotes-v2

  From the ATT Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement:

  Shareholder Proposal 4:

  Shirley Leschin, c/o John Veldey, 112 West Church St., Marshalltown,
  IA 50158, has submitted the following proposal:

  "WHEREAS the following population figures (obtained from U.S.
  Statistical Abstract) are presented to support the fact that we
  are becoming a geriatric society

                        1985         1987

                          30.0%        30.6%
      Age 45+ ������ 71,947,000   73,461,000

                          42.7%        42.9%
      Age 18-44 ���� 99,975,000  102,807,000

                          19.0%        18.8%
      Age 5-17 ����� 44,749,000   44,977,000

                           7.6%         7.5%
      Under 5 ������ 17,826,000   18,037,000


  and WHEREAS in the opinion of this proponent certain segments are
  already showing the affects namely the closing of schools due to
  an absence of children; the ongoing expansion of nursing care
  facilities for the elderly; the future lack of younger workers
  to sustain the social security system and the defence of our
  nation THEREFORE IT IS RECOMMENDED that this corporation refrain
  from support of any organizations that endorse, counsel, or perform
  abortion."

                             -------------------

  Your Directors recommend a vote against this proposal.  As a matter
  of corporate policy, AT&T has not taken a stand on the abortion issue;
  nor does the Company endorse any organization's position on the this
  issue.

  We can safely assume that the views of AT&T shareowners are as diverse
  as surveys show national attitudes to be on this very controversial
  issue.  It would be presumptuous, therefor, for the Company to take
  a position on this matter.  we think that shareowners would not ex-
  pect or want us to do so.  Therefore, your Directors recommend that
  shareholders vote against this proposal.

                             -------------------

  Approval of the preceeding shareholder proposals would require a
  majority of the votes cast thereon.

  The 1990 annual meeting will be held on April 18 at the Los Angeles
  Convention Center.  Holders of common shares of record at the close
  of business on February 27, 1990, will be entitled to vote with
  respect to the various issues.

                                   Atlant

    
    ummm, was the meeting 2/27, or is it still to be?  I can't remember...
    
    anyway, as a shareholder and former employee of AT&T this has
    perturbed me.  I mean really...the company had the right idea in
    its voting brochure...they should NOT take a side, as they are
    NOT a personal or political body.  Oh well.  One more time to
    the old typewriter to let them know of my displeasure.
    
    deb
    

 Welcome to the other edge...

    I've always loved that argument.  "No abortions because we're loosing
    both a tax base, (for war predominantly?)  and soldiers for war".
    
    No abortions because WE want a chance to kill these kids.  Our reasons
    for sending an 18 year old off to die are much more "right" than your
    reasons for terminating a 6 week conceptus.  
    
    Family Planning shouldn't have to depend on donations.  Our regular
    health care providers should provide the service, administered through
    regular group insurance agencies.  But then you do run the risk of 
    fading dollars and boys for war.

    Can AT&T be serious?  Do (did?!) they actually believe that anyone with
    an IQ over 22 will believe that they are genuinely concerned about the
    aging of American?  
    
    It sounds like AT&T is saying not only that they disapprove of abortion
    (why do they think they have a say in this anyway?) but that all women
    should breed as many children as possible, regardless of the conditions
    that the children will be raised in.  IE, as long as there are more
    children, AT&T doesn't care if the children are hungry, battered and
    bruised, sexually molested, live in fire traps, etc., etc.  
    
    If AT&T is so concerned about the lack of children in this country, let
    them put their money where their mouth is and donate (more?) money
    towards changing the things that make women (people) choose not to have
    children.  Let them work to improve all the myriad condtions that
    *make* people choose not to have children.  Let AT&T commit to making
    child-rearing a reasonable option for people and let them *not*
    suggest that women are mindless robots that should be breeding
    constantly simply because AT&T is concerned about the aging of America.
    
    Meredith
      

RE:                     <<< Note 1064.6 by WJOUSM::GOODHUE >>>
                            -< AT&T Breeding Plan >-

 >    It sounds like AT&T is saying not only that they disapprove of abortion
>    (why do they think they have a say in this anyway?) but that all women
>    should breed as many children as possible, regardless of the conditions
>    that the children will be raised in.  IE, as long as there are more
>    children, AT&T doesn't care if the children are hungry, battered and
>    bruised, sexually molested, live in fire traps, etc., etc.  
    
 The way I read the note is that a shareholder referundum was proposed
which the ATT board recommended against.  So I think you should be
flaming the one who proposed the proposal and not AT&T.  Now AT&T
withdrawl of support for Planned Parenthood was an act of the
corparation.

john

Wasn't it Ceaucescue (sp?) who prohibited birth control and abortions
in Romania to ensure that the population continued to grow?  Maybe he
came back from the dead as an AT&T shareholder.

M

    It sounds like AT&T is just trying to refrain from taking sides.
    Why are so many people trying to make them take sides? They are
    not in the medical business after all. Abortion is none of AT&Ts
    business. Let they keep out of it.
    
    ~Cliff

    AT&T should stay out of it.  But they have already taken sides.  They
    dropped their funding of Planned Parenthood because PP advocated
    abortion or because AT&T wanted more children born.  In either case,
    AT&T took sides when they first funded PP - not in the abortion issue
    but certainly in the contraceptive issue.  They switched sides when
    they decided to stop funding PP.
    
    Meredith
    

>    AT&T should stay out of it.  But they have already taken sides.  They
>    dropped their funding of Planned Parenthood because PP advocated
>    abortion or because AT&T wanted more children born.

 Maybe they dropped funding because they didn't want to be a target of boycotts,
etc from either side. They were in a position to be attacked by the pro-lifers.
They probably wanted to terminate that exposure. In doing so, the pro-choice
faction got all bent out of shape. Now they are doing lots of chest beating,
as if the fact that AT&T is now REQUIRED to contribute since they did so in
the past. Instead of focusing on the fact that AT&T did contribute a fair sum
over the years, they are incensed that AT&T has decided to no longer expose
themselves to extremist politicization.

 In the end, this type of recrimination for withdrawing voluntary contributions
by the pro-choice movement will ultimately mean that fewer business enterprises
will choose to give money to anyone that can be linked with this volatile
political football. As many people have stated, AT&T would have been better
off never to have given anything. There is a net loss in there; finding it is
an exercise left to the reader.

 The Doctah

    
    Doctah,
    
    yup, there is a 'net loss' there.  Too bad, cuz many of the 
    charitable contributions that corporations make can now be subject
    to whatever political hot potato issues arise.  I mean think of the
    trouble company's will have to determine where to send their money...
    
    can't go to PBS cuz they have AIDS programs, birthing programs, etc
    which *may* suggest their support of these issues/lifestyles...
    
    can't go to any AIDS funding...after all don't want to seem to be
    promoting homosexuality.
    
    can't go to any medical facility/organization which supports birth
    control or abortion...
    
    can't go to any Art institute (remember Mapplethorpe...)
    
    can't go to any Educational institution which passes out condoms,
    or provides education to doctors who perform abortions...
    
    can't go to....
    
    
    hmmm...let's see..  maybe the garden club could be funded...
    no...they use pesticides, which are carcinogens which kill the young...
    
    ....
    
    
    now what?
    
    deb
    

  Also lost in all of this noise is the idea that abortion is *THE
  LAST MEANS* of birth control.  Plamned Parenthood advocates many
  alternative means as well; I'm quite certain their position *ISN'T*
  "Oh, don't worry and don't do anything.  You can always get an a-
  bortion".  But as I mentioned over in the "Potatoes" note, the
  same crowd that is opposed to abortion is *MOSTLY* opposed to
  other artificial methods of birth control as well, including
  lots of methods that act before conception.

  BTW, there's another note in this conference discussing The United
  Way, and the gutless attitude they've taken towards this same problem.

                                   Atlant

    Am I the only one that doesn't see the relationship between reduced
    enrollment in schools and the conclusion that we are a geriatric
    society???

    Among the dozens and dozens of reasons for reduced enrollment in
    schools that have NOTHING to do with a shifting age base is the one
    that there is so much illiteracy and poverty that people either can't
    afford to keep children in school, or don't have the sense to encourage
    children to attend school when they drop out.

    This blows my mind!

    Of course, Digital just did the same thing with their matching gift
    program to a charity that is involved in litigation over misuse of
    funds.  There is a BIG difference between pulling funds because a
    charity does something unethical, and pulling funds because something a
    charity does is unpopular, but its not hard to see how the line can get
    finer and finer (I didn't mention illegal, because that is getting
    pretty gray too).
    
    Jim
    

    .14 > Am I the only one that doesn't see the relationship between reduced
    .14 > enrollment in schools and the conclusion that we are a geriatric
    .14 > society???
    
    I don't know if you're "the only one."  And I don't agree that we are
    "a geriatric society."  But the connection between the age structure of
    the population and school enrollments (elementary through graduate
    school) is very direct.  In particular, persistence of our youth
    through high school graduation has been quite stable for a few decades. 
    Enrollments are going down because the birth rate started going down in
    1960.  Rising life expectancy over earlier decades would, of course,
    cause an increase in the average age even if the birth rate was
    constant.
    
    On the other hand, a falling birth rate is not due to Roe v. Wade, or
    Wo/man's Lib, or The Pill.  To oversimplify, it is due to economic and
    social development.  The birth rate in the United States has fallen
    very steadily for almost two centuries, with the sole exception of the
    period from 1935 to 1960.  Note (as an interesting aside) that contrary
    to popular mythology, the "Baby Boom" was not a Post-WWII phenomenon,
    but got its start in the middle of the depression.
    
    			- Bruce

    Declining birth rates are a GOOD THING if you look at the big picture.

    Overpopulation of our earth is much more serious than how much Social
        Security we will have when we retire or how many schools close.




     Barbi

    

    re .16

    Absolutely. Even ignoring any connection between the proposal statement
    and the abortion issue, any suggestion to *increase* the birth rate in
    the United States or *anywhere* in the world has got to be one of the
    most irresponsible positions I can imagine.

<yet another borrowed from the net peice of info...~robin>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 You can send email to AT&T Foundation at:
 
	Domainish: brpr02.ATT.COM!found
	Bangish: ...att!brpr02!found
 
They would like to hear from AT&T employees, stockholders, and customers.
 
For more information, there's an article about the Foundation's decision
in today's (Thursday's) _New York Times_, first section.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

    on the news tonite..
    
    AT and T has stopped an annual gift of 50,000 dollars to planned
    parenthood.
    in place of that they are now giving 250 million dollars in funds
    to groups in 10 cities that are working to prevent teenage 
    pregnancy..
    
    
    should we really be protesting?
    
    Bonnie

    
    bonnie...
    tell me more.  And surely its 250thousand not million...
    
    anyway, i didn't hear this, and would like to know if indeed they
    have 'additionally' funded these organizations, or just highlighting
    'continuing' contributions to these folks.
    
    thanx
    debbie
    

    
    Yes we should be worried.  Any situation, direct or indirect, that
    may stand to support the movement to have the government police
    woman's reproductive rights should make any woman worry.
    Their pulling back support for Planned Parenthood does
    have its implications on the issue.  
    
    It is unfortunate that a small minority of folks seek to impose
    their views of right and wrong on the majority.  A direct result
    of this is that now abortion has become a major (if not the major)
    factor when women decide where their support will stand.  
    Certainly abortion is not something that is going to affect
    everyone in this nation.  However, a woman's fundamental right
    to control her body is ultimately what is at stake here.  
    
    I as a woman am going to do all I can to prevent this right
    from being taken away from me.  If this includes not eating
    Idaho potatoes, then I won't.  If it includes not using AT&T's
    service, then I won't.  Business and politicians are now
    beginning to realize that no matter what they do or what
    services they supply they are going to be judged to some
    degree by which side they support. Sure this is unfortunate
    as it should not be in this arena, but it has gotten this far.
    
    It really is getting to the point that unless support is
    given to both sides from the X, then support for X  
    by the public will continue.  But if X decides to pull
    support for one side, then the other side will naturally
    pull support for X.  It again is a damned if you do damned
    if you don't situation.
    
    Michele

    debbie,
    
    what I entered was all that I heard on the news. and on the news
    broadcast the pbs interviewer referred to the amount as a quarter
    of million and the phone company representative corrected him and
    said 250 million (tho I may have mis heard).
    
    did anyone else hear the news broadcast
    
    I agree the $$ sounds too high.
    
    Bonnie

>Business and politicians are now
>    beginning to realize that no matter what they do or what
>    services they supply they are going to be judged to some
>    degree by which side they support.

 As far as politicians go, such is life in the fast lane. But where businesses
are concerned, this polarization is going to cost alot of people alot of money.
Businesses cannot afford to have organized boycotts by large groups of
consumers, thus they tend to react to boycotts. When a voluntary contribution
to an organization becomes a no win situation for the company as has happened
here, the rule of business will become "do not contribute to any organization
that could even remotely have the chance of becoming a political albatross,
even if by not contributing people will suffer." The bottom line IS the
bottom line. AT&T surely rues the day it ever STARTED giving money to planned
parenthood. I'm sure they wish they never gave a penny; there current problem
would not exist. And yet, if they hadn't ever started contributing, there would
be some people who would not have been helped. And that's sad.

 With politics becoming increasingly polarized and each extreme moving further
away from the mainstream, we are going to see fewer and fewer companies willing
to stick their necks out by giving money to "unsafe" charities. The worse
problem is that more and more charities are going to be characterized as
"unsafe." This is exactly the opposite message for us to send to the private
sector; we need to foster an atmosphere where voluntary contributions are
encouraged, rather than discouraged.

 I am personally disgusted at the tendency of politics to filter down into
every single aspect of life. It's getting to the point where you are supposed
to feel guilty about going to the bathroom because the water company contributes
to some emotionally charged political cause.

 I wish people would learn to mind their own effing business. My ideal situation
would be to live in a country where it was illegal to mind someone else's 
business. :-} Sheesh!

 The Doctah

    The amount quoted by AT&T was $2.25 million to local organizations.
    

    thanks

Robert Allen
Chairman A.T. & T.
295 North Maple Avenue
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

    I got this information secondhand (at least).  I trust the person I got
    it from, who wishes to remain anonymous, but I don't know anything for
    certain about the originator:
    
    "[ATT is alleged to be taking calls at this toll-free number about their
    decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood:]
 
	1-800-842-8369
 
    They want to know if you're pro or con, and whether you're an employee,
    shareholder, or customer."
                             

    I have a Working Assets Visa credit card, which donates money to
    various progressive causes whenever you make a purchase.  Working
    Assets also has a long distance service, which is provided through U.S.
    Sprint; this service donates 1% of your charges, also to progressive
    causes, each time you make a long distance call (their ad in the
    current issue of "Utne Reader" emphasizes environmental and rain forest
    issues, but if I am not mistaken I believe they donate money to other
    causes as well).  They have been promoting this service for some time,
    and I often get their brochures with their mail, but until now I have
    not paid much attention.  I may decide to take another look.

    -- Mike

Mike:
> I have a Working Assets Visa credit card, which donates money to
>    various progressive causes whenever you make a purchase.

Neato keeno.  Can you give me information on how to contact this Visa company?

D!

    I'll try to get more information about Working Assets, both the credit
    card and their U.S. Sprint long distance service, and post it here.

    -- Mike

    RE:  Working Assets

    Great card to use.  You get to both nominate and vote on who 
    gets the money that builds up every time you run that piece
    of plastic through the machine.

    justme....jacqui   8*)

    
    Whats wrong with just writing a check and sending it to 
    your favorite cause?
    

    Nothing is wrong with it.  Why do you ask?

    If you are interested in information about Working Assets VISA and the
    long distance service, you might try calling 1-800-522-7759.
    
    Working Assets VISA has mailed, with the April bill, the results of the
    most recent ballot on the donations pool.  This ballot determined how
    the 1989 donations were divided.  The total amount donated last year
    was $365,415.  Donations were divided into four broad categories: 
    environment (31.5%), human rights (30.0%), economic justice (21.0%),
    and peace (17.5%).

    The top votegetters in the ballot received the most money.  The largest
    recipient was Greenpeace, which received $27,787.  The other top
    votegetters were the National Abortion Rights Action League ($24,132),
    the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force ($20,183), the Environmental
    Defense Fund ($19,168), Amnesty International ($18,316), and Habitat
    for Humanity ($14,573).

    The complete list of recipients is as follows:

    Environment:
        African Wildlife Foundation
        Conservation International
        Earth Day 1990
        Earth Island Institute
        Environmental Defense Fund
        Greenpeace
        Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN)
        National Toxics Campaign

    Human Rights:
        Amnesty International
        China Information Center
        National Abortion Rights Action League
        National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse
        National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
        Older Women's League
        Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims
        Southern Poverty Law Center

    Economic Justice:
        Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
        Cultural Survival
        Federation of Southern Cooperatives
        First Nation's Financial Project
        Food First
        Habitat for Humanity
        National Coalition for the Homeless
        Oxfam America

    Peace:
        Center for Economic Conversion
        Children of War
        Educators for Social Responsibility
        Foundation for MidEast Communication
        Fund for a Free South Africa
        INFACT
        Trickle Up Program
        Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).
    
    You can also write checks to Working Assets, which will distribute your
    money directly to these charities.
    
    -- Mike

  "The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour" did a large report on the AT&T
  annual meeting and the issues raised by the shareholder proposal
  and the cutoff of funds to Planned Parenthood.  Apparently, votes
  representing 94% of the shares were cast *AGAINST* the proposal.
  (They didn't say what percentage were cast *FOR* the proposal.)

                                   Atlant

    re: -1
    Then how come it went into effect?  Especially if the directors
    were also opposed to it?

  You've got to keep mindful that there are two slightly-separate things
  going on here:

    - One is the shareholder proposal to cause AT&T to actively work
      against abortions.  That was roundly defeated.

    - The other is the pre-emptive reaction strike that the Directors
      took to try to get off the hook.  That pre-emptive reaction strike
      was to stop their annual contribution to Planned Parenthhod.  But
      if they got off the hook, it was only to subsequently fall into a
      pool of deep doo-doo from which they have yet to emerge.

                                   Atlant