Plan B
It must be the low poll ratings for the President and the fear that Republicans may lose control of one or both Houses of Congress, but after 5 ½ years of delay and ignoring scientific advisory panels, the Administration finally is allowing the sale of Plan B (the morning after pill). Of course they couldn’t just make it available. Instead they have surrounded its release with controls that require the purchaser to talk to a pharmacist and establish that he or she is over 18 years of age in order to get the pill, which is being stored under, not over, the counter. Anyone under 18 needs to first obtain a prescription.
Despite allowing this for political gain, they are doing everything they can to assuage the conservative base. Instead of having the FDA official responsible for this decision appear on the Lehrer New Hour last night, they sent a Public Health Service bureaucrat, in uniform, to claim he is not political but is just there to present the facts. Lehrer usually gets high government officials for interviews - Condi, Rummy, Chertoff etc., but not this time.
This poor guy struggled valorously but could not avoid getting tangled in the of-the moment logic so loved by the conservative mind. That usually involves making statements with no realization, or concern of how contradictory they are. For example: in explaining why the age division is a necessity, the spokesman talked about how rash and risky teenage behavior could be and how teens would be unable to follow the directions for safely taking the drug, therefore, requiring the intercession of a physician. Of course the rash and risky behavior is what leads to the need to take this pill. Making it difficult to obtain for this group of people will only lead to more pregnancies, and either more abortions or more unwanted children.
In support of dispensing this pill only in pharmacies, the argument was that since pharmacists are licensed by the state and trained in schools of pharmacy, only they could assume the role of assuring that the person requesting the drug was 18 years or older. Because of that training, they would be able to look the person in the eye and ask for proof of age. Of course this high qualification standard isn’t a necessity in the nation’s liquor stores, who also are supposed to avoid selling to people less than 18 years of age.
Also on Lehrer, last night, a representative of the Catholic Bishop’s conference was arguing that the announcement yesterday that stem cells were obtained without destroying an embryo was not a possible scientific advance that eliminated the embryo destruction issue, because in the course of the experiments, some embryos were destroyed. The extension of his argument was that in vitro fertilization should not be allowed because some embryos are discarded in the process. The doctor who led the stem cell study pointed out that over one million children have been born to couples using this technique after being unable to conceive on their own.
Putting all this together leads to this summary of conservative belief: ‘we oppose abortion and prefer that people bring children into the world who are not wanted and will not be cared for. We oppose in vitro fertilization because some embryos will be destroyed, therefore preventing people who want children from having them. We oppose stem cell research because embryos will be destroyed, despite the promise of reducing disease, pain, and suffering in adults.’ This sounds like a classic definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
If people for moral, ethical, or religious reasons oppose abortion, they should not have abortions. If they think taking Plan B is wrong, they should not use Plan B. If they believe stem cell research is counter to their beliefs, they should not partake in any of its benefits even if they have a disease that stem cells might cure. I would support them in each of these decisions. But nothing in this society gives them the right to force their desires and beliefs on people who disagree with their position. This inability to live in a plural society where not everyone thinks similarly, and to accept those differences as part of a free and democratic socity, is the thread that connects the right wing in this country with all the religious extremists we are facing throughout the world today.
Despite allowing this for political gain, they are doing everything they can to assuage the conservative base. Instead of having the FDA official responsible for this decision appear on the Lehrer New Hour last night, they sent a Public Health Service bureaucrat, in uniform, to claim he is not political but is just there to present the facts. Lehrer usually gets high government officials for interviews - Condi, Rummy, Chertoff etc., but not this time.
This poor guy struggled valorously but could not avoid getting tangled in the of-the moment logic so loved by the conservative mind. That usually involves making statements with no realization, or concern of how contradictory they are. For example: in explaining why the age division is a necessity, the spokesman talked about how rash and risky teenage behavior could be and how teens would be unable to follow the directions for safely taking the drug, therefore, requiring the intercession of a physician. Of course the rash and risky behavior is what leads to the need to take this pill. Making it difficult to obtain for this group of people will only lead to more pregnancies, and either more abortions or more unwanted children.
In support of dispensing this pill only in pharmacies, the argument was that since pharmacists are licensed by the state and trained in schools of pharmacy, only they could assume the role of assuring that the person requesting the drug was 18 years or older. Because of that training, they would be able to look the person in the eye and ask for proof of age. Of course this high qualification standard isn’t a necessity in the nation’s liquor stores, who also are supposed to avoid selling to people less than 18 years of age.
Also on Lehrer, last night, a representative of the Catholic Bishop’s conference was arguing that the announcement yesterday that stem cells were obtained without destroying an embryo was not a possible scientific advance that eliminated the embryo destruction issue, because in the course of the experiments, some embryos were destroyed. The extension of his argument was that in vitro fertilization should not be allowed because some embryos are discarded in the process. The doctor who led the stem cell study pointed out that over one million children have been born to couples using this technique after being unable to conceive on their own.
Putting all this together leads to this summary of conservative belief: ‘we oppose abortion and prefer that people bring children into the world who are not wanted and will not be cared for. We oppose in vitro fertilization because some embryos will be destroyed, therefore preventing people who want children from having them. We oppose stem cell research because embryos will be destroyed, despite the promise of reducing disease, pain, and suffering in adults.’ This sounds like a classic definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
If people for moral, ethical, or religious reasons oppose abortion, they should not have abortions. If they think taking Plan B is wrong, they should not use Plan B. If they believe stem cell research is counter to their beliefs, they should not partake in any of its benefits even if they have a disease that stem cells might cure. I would support them in each of these decisions. But nothing in this society gives them the right to force their desires and beliefs on people who disagree with their position. This inability to live in a plural society where not everyone thinks similarly, and to accept those differences as part of a free and democratic socity, is the thread that connects the right wing in this country with all the religious extremists we are facing throughout the world today.
posted by John Weiss at 3:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home