Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 16, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PLAN B....President Bush nominated yet another head for the FDA on Wednesday, but two Democratic senators immediately put the kibosh on it:

Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington announced Wednesday that they would block a floor vote on the nomination until the FDA made a firm decision on the controversy whether or not to allow Plan B, the "morning after" birth control pill, to be sold without a prescription.

....The agency's scientific staff has long concluded that the contraceptive is safe and effective for over-the-counter use by women of all ages, according to internal memos recently released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). But senior FDA officials have repeatedly delayed a final decision. That has prompted some in the medical community, as well as Democrats such as Clinton and Murray, to charge that the agency compromised its scientific judgment under pressure from social conservatives influential in the Bush administration.

Good for them. Aside from the personal insult of being directly lied to (Clinton was promised a vote on Plan B last year if she'd allow Bush's previous nominee to proceed, and was then double crossed) this is plainly a case of interfering with the FDA's normal scientific role in order to pander to the Falwell-Schlafly wing of the Republican coalition. The FDA's role is to decide if drugs are safe, not to decide if they're moral, and the Bush White House is corrupting that role for political gain.

Because of this, more teenage girls will get pregnant who don't want to be, more of them will get abortions, more of them will suffer sustained emotional devastation, and more of them will end up bearing children they aren't prepared to support. All thanks to a corruption of the scientific process enthusiastically supported by President Bush. Hooray.

Kevin Drum 12:51 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (70)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Good for them, indeed.

Standing up for what you believe in, calling a liar a liar, all good stuff.

Compare and contrast...

Posted by: craigie on March 16, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

this is plainly a case of interfering with the FDA's normal scientific role in order to pander to the Falwell-Schlafly wing of the Republican coalition.

Wrong again Kevin. The reason why Plan B should be banned is because it is unsafe.

As Susan E. Willis,assistant director for program development at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for Pro-Life Activities in Washington, D.C, has pointed out

Link

"Progestin-only EC (e.g., Plan-B) requires taking up to 50 times the usual daily dose of this hormone within a 12-hour period. Preven, and combined oral contraceptives (COC) when used as EC, requires taking four to eight times the usual daily COC dose within a 12-hour period. Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding."

Posted by: Al on March 16, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Hell, I'd rather force the Senate and House to vote on it. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has a bill in front of the House Subcommittee on Health, and we can't get Vice Chair Mike Ferguson to take a position on the bill or Plan B. It'd be great if he had to vote to put his position on the line.

Posted by: NAR on March 16, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

This week's (or possibly now last week's) New Yorker has the Bush War on Science covered pretty well.

Another issue that Dems could own, if only they... oh, nevermind.

Posted by: craigie on March 16, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Specter's article in the New Yorker last week had some further info about von Eschenbach - such as his powerpoint slide opening a scientific presentation with something like "God Bless Us". The article also talked about how religious zealots oppose HPV vaccines which can save hundred of thousands of womens lives by protecting them from cervical cancer because the vaccine would open the door to promisicuity. Ditto HIV vaccine, vaginal microbicides, etc. There is really no end to the ways (e.g. opposing needle exchange programs (not just with US dollars, but globally)) in which this administration is allowing narrow visions of morality trump good science and consequently failing to protect lives.

Posted by: joe on March 16, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding."

Al, do a simple cost-benefit analysis here. Compare the above to the emotional cost of abortion or bearing a child you can't support.

Posted by: mymble on March 16, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Try selling to the parents who will vote in November that you want to make it easier for their daughters to screw around without any consequences.

Actually, Democrats could make some progress in the elections by "nationalizing" some issues like the Contract With America did. Kevin and others have suggested health care as one option.

Unfortunately, at least for the Democrats, they seem to be relatively single-minded lately. If they can win the House and Senate back on "Bush Sucks," and that he doublecrossed Hillary they might have a chance.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 16, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

As Susan E. Willis,assistant director for program development at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for Pro-Life Activities in Washington, D.C, has pointed out

Oh good, an unbiased expert.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 16, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding." Hmm, those sound a lot like the side effects of pregnancy to me, except they last 12 hours, instead of nine months, and you don't get a baby after

Posted by: northzax on March 16, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK
"Progestin-only EC (e.g., Plan-B) requires taking up to 50 times the usual daily dose of this hormone within a 12-hour period. Preven, and combined oral contraceptives (COC) when used as EC, requires taking four to eight times the usual daily COC dose within a 12-hour period.

Several multiples of the usual daily dose of contraceptives are also prescribed to treat other conditions; not just for EC. So?


Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding.

Those are, in fact, common side effects of large numbers of drug treatments that are in common use for a number of purposes -- including large doses of oral contraceptives which are sometimes prescribed for reasons other than contraception, emergency or otherwise. Obviously, those are not the kinds of things you want to have someone on continuously, and its not unheard of for prescriptions that have those effects to be accompanied by prescriptions for anti-nausea medication or other medication to control the side effects. Nevertheless, it is shear scaremongering and disproportionality to call that "unsafe".

Indeed, most of those are common side effects of pregnancy, so in the context of emergency contraception, its particularly mendacious to use that as the basis for claiming the treatment is unsafe.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Uh yeah, pro-life religious zealout v. scientists--guess who the wingnut believes?

Posted by: Ringo on March 16, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

does anyone know if that nutcase David Hager is still on the FDA advisory panel? if so, Plan B will NEVER get approved.

Posted by: EM on March 16, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Al, is that "unsafe" a joke?

Bleeding, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, breast tenderness--are you aware that this is pretty fucking routine for many women? It's called having a period. And, um, anything that BRINGS ON YOUR PERIOD is going to have pretty much the same effects. And, um, coffee gives me diarrhea. Do you think it should be available by prescription only?

And frankly, every single one of these side effects are laughable compared to the side effects of even the easiest pregnancies.

If the best you can do in terms of "health risk" is saying "it's like having a really bad period," I just don't think you're going to terrify too many women into thinking they're too stupid to use this drug appropriately.

But nice try.

Posted by: theorajones on March 16, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

does anyone know if that nutcase David Hager is still on the FDA advisory panel? if so, Plan B will NEVER get approved.

They have an unbounded supply of such nut cases. Whether or not David Hager is a part of the decision making is beside the point.

Posted by: lib on March 16, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Al, why did NRO forget the MD after Susan E. Willis' name? I mean, she's a Medical Doctor, right?

Posted by: northzax on March 16, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

"Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding."

all of which are side effects of regular oral contraceptives, but those are FDA approved.

Posted by: EM on March 16, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Oh good, an unbiased expert.

I don't know if you've noticed, but as the process of examining evidence form the real world is now basically a political position, expertise is now inherently a bias.

Posted by: Andrew Ti on March 16, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

That has prompted some in the medical community, as well as Democrats such as Clinton and Murray, to charge that the agency compromised its scientific judgment under pressure from social conservatives influential in the Bush administration.

Any actual evidence of this pressure? I've seen articles where the FDA has stated that the drug company--one of those Big Pharms everyone here hates--has been pushing this hard with insufficient safety data.

My personal opinion is that calling something that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg "abortion" is stretching the term beyond all reason. Doesn't mean it's safe to buy hormone loads off the shelf.

Oh, and fake tbrosz?

You're phoning it in.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 16, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I am new to this site and enjoy reading the various opinions provided here...and am impressed with this site!

This political satirist is absolutely genius in my opinion...
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/neoconmen.html


Posted by: MB on March 16, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Funny the exitement a 32% approval generates with dems, yet Bush and the rightwing are succeeding on every front. Plan B is a perfect example. Or how bout changing the wording on security clearance for gays (see wonkette), SCOTUS, signing statements, ANWAR, NSA, and abortion ban in SD to name a few. And these are what we know about! At this point Karl could care less about approval ratings, Bush is a LD, but can still plant religious rightwing seeds everywhere and sleep at night. And unless the dems can do something, 06 and 08 will more of the same.

I predict the next three years we'll see a lot of this religious right tinkering with the machinery of this country.

Iraq be damned, iran too, stuff like plan B and abortion ban is the stuff I hate the most; the slow methodical capture of this country by the hard religious right, like goddamned ivy from the neighbor's yard. The religious right wants a homeland and are taking it one small step at a time.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on March 16, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Im glad to hear that the top comments were the fake tbrosz. Sounded like he had blown a gasket and lost his faith in the Bush Agenda.

Whatever it is now.

Off Topic, has anyone noticed that few bother to ask what our leader thinks about economic policy anymore? All the blogs lately focus on Bernanke and his Board and what they think and what they will do. It seems to be taken for granted that no one elsewhere in the Administration has a clue.

Meanwhile there are 14000 vacant homes for sale in Phoenix.

Deficits dont matter, after all.

Posted by: troglodyte on March 16, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

What is it that determines why some nominations can be blocked by a single senator while others can't be? I thought the Republicans had eliminated all the methods that senatorial courtesy used to make possible. If not, why aren't they used on judicial nominees?

Posted by: KCinDC on March 16, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Because of this, more teenage girls will get pregnant who don't want to be

Well, the solution is obvious: outlaw sex in America!

America will be a sex free zone. In America, only outlaws have sex. In America, every man and woman will be "energized" to work longer hours because they will not be distracted by the opposite (or same) sex.

Vote Republican and enjoy a life without sex. Don't let those sick brained Democrats corrupt you. If you vote Republican you can have a second chance at virginity!`

(Paid for by the committee to re-elect the President, again and again.)

Posted by: Dicksknee on March 16, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

So she'll block a vote on this, but not on a Supreme Court judge whose sole purpose in life is to overturn abortion laws. Riiiiiiiiiight. Great. That's excellent.

Posted by: Monkey on March 16, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Requiring a prescription for Plan B is almost the same as banning it completely. IINM, it has to be taken with 48 hours of unprotected sex to be effective. Getting a doctor's appointment and a prescription in that little time can be difficult, especially on a weekend (when the need is most likely to arise).

Posted by: Peter on March 16, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I love it when people act like because they come out with this drug that little GOP daughters become outragous whores. If they are sooo worried about it they should try parenting their kids, maybe then they won't have to worry. If people think this encorages kids to have sex, maybe parents should tell their kids otherwise, and then the people who need this get this, instead of a bunch of bad parents worried that thier kid is going to have sex because they never talk about it, er... maybe if we pretend its not there it will go away right? Good parenting skills you GOP turds.

Posted by: Jeremy on March 16, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and fake tbrosz?

You're phoning it in.

Really? I thought the fake at 1:06 was spot on.

Posted by: craigie on March 16, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Off Topic, has anyone noticed that few bother to ask what our leader thinks about economic policy anymore?

It's getting hard to put negative numbers on the economy right now without resorting to multidimensional mathematics. So you aren't going to hear much about it here, except in anecdotal items like "14,000 homes for sale in Phoenix."

BTW, what kind of a statistic is that? How many homes are for sale in a normal city? Are they the same homes that have been on the market for a long time? Different ones every day? How does it compare to the same number in other years?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 16, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Indeed, most of those are common side effects of pregnancy, so in the context of emergency contraception, its particularly mendacious to use that as the basis for claiming the treatment is unsafe.

I'm sure its particular mendacity is what made the claim so appealing, cm.

Posted by: Gregory on March 16, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and fake tbrosz?

You're phoning it in.

Which just means that fake tbrosz is a more accurate parody than you might care to admit. :)

Posted by: Gregory on March 16, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

It will be really hard to sell the news of doom and gllom in American economy to the voters whose real wages have actually declined since GWB became our commander-in-chief.

What kind of statistic is that? Only liberals would care about decline in real wages.

Posted by: lib on March 16, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

14000 *vacant* homes. There are 38000+ homes on the market in Phoenix. roughly 5000 sold in January. Fewer in February. The housing market is showing signs of moving south. One of the Fed governors went on record today, saying that the Fed would not act to support house prices.

Multidimensional, yes. Google the words "yen carry trade" sometime.

Posted by: troglodyte on March 16, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: It's getting hard to put negative numbers on the economy right now without resorting to multidimensional mathematics.

Not really.

Five years of Bush and the GOP and no significant advance in the DOW from when Clinton left office, despite abundant promises that tax cuts were rock (in the positive sense the word is often used) the DOW.

See, simple mathematics works just fine.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 16, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of the cooling housing market, I think it's fascinating how the GOP cultists attribute what economic success there has been to Bush's tax cuts and totally ignore the combination of historically low interest rates and the housing bubble. (Now, mention Clinton's eight years of peace and prosperity, and you'll hear about the stock market bubble quickly enough...)

With the housing market cooling, now begins the real test of voodoo economics. Let's see if those tax cuts work their mojo like they're touted. Why, I'd almost be in favor of extending them for a few years (not permanently, of course) just so the GOP has no cover whatsoever.

Posted by: Gregory on March 16, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I do not have the exact statistics handy, but the total number of private sector jobs created during the tenure of the Bush administration till May 2005 was ZERO.

Only a moron would think that such measures of economic growth point to economic success of the GWB regime.

Posted by: nut on March 16, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, my response to tbrosz request for facts was incomplete, 'cause I had a family dinner intrude. The importance of dimensionless numbers is key.

The telling parameter for Phoenix real estate is that the number of homes for sale (which has grown by almost a factor of four since midsummer) has now reached 1% of the population. Not 1% of all homesare for sale, but one home for sale per 100 people. Empirical observations suggest that this ratio pushes the housing market into the "buyer's market" situation where prices start to fall. Unless the community is one with a great deal of immigration, there arent that many buyers around to keep prices high.

Orange county California, by contrast, has a ratio of roughly 0.3%, and seems less vulnerable to a price fall. Its only one indicator, though.

Posted by: troglodyte on March 16, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK


More home-inventory numbers can be found at

http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/

Las Vegas and Florida are ripe for a price correction by the population/homes4sale ratio. If you are a condoflipper, waiting 10 months to unload your property (the current marginal sellrate in Phoenix) will hurt your cashflow significantly, and perhaps threaten the profit itself. So the sellers are likely to blink before buyers on price.

Posted by: troglodyte on March 16, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

...the Bush White House is corrupting that role for political gain.

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya.

Posted by: ckelly on March 16, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

As Susan E. Willis,assistant director for program development at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops for Pro-Life Activities in Washington, D.C, has pointed out

Sounds like a scientist to me!
--W

Posted by: W- The PrezDent on March 16, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Common side effects of EC are nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, dizziness, breast tenderness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding.

Sounds like pregnancy.

Posted by: ckelly on March 16, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hey wingnuts:

Unlike many liberals, I'm willing to give you Roe. Never liked abortion too much, myself. (Yes, I'm a man, so I'll accept any and all flames blaming my anti-abortion stance on the patriarchy.)

However, if you want to win over people like myself on Roe, than you had damn sure better be able to guarantee that kids who are having sex are doing so safely. Plan B, birth control, condoms, etc. - you are going to have to admit that we need these things. Otherwise you are simply in denial about the fact that kids are having sex, and coldheartedly ignoring them once they get pregnant and/or diseased.

Posted by: mmy on March 16, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Obviously, those are not the kinds of things you want to have someone on continuously, and its not unheard of for prescriptions that have those effects to be accompanied by prescriptions for anti-nausea medication or other medication to control the side effects. Nevertheless, it is shear scaremongering and disproportionality to call that "unsafe".

Go tell your Pope then.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK
Go tell your Pope then.

Wait, earlier this week you were accusing me of opposing anything not supported by the Pope.

Now you are accusing me of contradicting the Pope.

Perhaps, maybe, you should decide which of the two mutual contradictory lines of irrelevant personal attacks you wish to use when you drop in your nonsense comments to try to sidetrack the discussion.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

I gave examples on that thread of what you WERE supporting the Vatican on - as you know, I have always been highly critical of your hypocrisy when it comes to abortion - I never said you agreed with the Pope on that.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Because of this, more teenage girls will get pregnant who don't want to be
Who don't want to be? You know they've learned what causes pregnancy. Turns out it's controllable.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

mmy:

Since I don't have a problem using abortion as birth control, I don't have a problem with Plan B or other forms of birth control. Where I do draw the line is providing birth control through the public schools.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut:

For some like Scotian around here, it is obviously NOT controllable - there are ways to manage your addictions though.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
Since I don't have a problem using abortion as birth control, I don't have a problem with Plan B or other forms of birth control. Where I do draw the line is providing birth control through the public schools.

Good for you. Why should we agree with where you draw the line?

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Don't you think you and I have gone 'round and 'round on this exact topic plenty of times already? I think we know fairly well where we each stand. I'm sure we are both ready to find someone a bit more reasonable to discuss this with.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK
Don't you think you and I have gone 'round and 'round on this exact topic plenty of times already?

On the topic of access to birth control in the public schools? No, I don't think we have.

On the the topic of you making up false, unsupported, and inconsistent personal attacks to divert discussion from substantive issues? Yeah, probably.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Now I remember why I left 6 months ago. If anyone else is actually interested, here's just ONE of the many threads that outlines why I think public schools (among other social institutions) cannot be FORCED to dispense birth control:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005974.php

Private organizations, like Planned Parenthood, etc., providing free clinics for abortion and other forms of birth control is fine by me - that should be protected under the U.S. Constitution to the fullest extent possible - taxpayer funded abortion is where I have always drawn the line.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Otherwise you are simply in denial about the fact that kids are having sex, and coldheartedly ignoring them once they get pregnant and/or diseased."

Um, isn't that kind of the point?
I think the Missouri legislature just prevented state agencies from offering any kind of birth control, because they don't want to "send a message" promoting promiscuity. Of course they are in denial.

Sex happens only because Republican legislatures don't make it clear that they disapprove of it sufficiently. Once all the little people (teenagers, poor, gay couples, even the normal horny married) realize their GOP masters disapprove of their having non-reproductive-oriented sex, they will immediately stop. Don't you understand that?

Posted by: Diana on March 16, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Diana:

I think it is a bit more complicated than that when you consider the Constitutional and separation of church and state issues involved. If you are fine with birth control being dispensed in public schools, are you also fine with school teachers evangelizing their pupils to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Aside from the personal insult of being directly lied to (Clinton was promised a vote on Plan B last year if she'd allow Bush's previous nominee to proceed, and was then double crossed)"

I wanted to thank Kevin for providing this information. I wasn't aware that Hillary was getting a bit of what she deserved. After all, the Clintons lied about gays in the military, lied about changing China's favored nation trading status, lied about health care, lied about Travelgate records, lied about sex in the oval office - what haven't they lied about? Nice to see the chicken come home to roost.

And Kevin, really! "They lied to her! They double-crossed her!" For gosh sakes, haven't you ever heard that all is fair in love and war and politics? You're certainly inviting the label "whiney liberal."

"Because of this, more teenage girls will get pregnant who don't want to be"

No, they get pregnant from having unprotected sex, not because they lack a pill.

"more of them will get abortions"

But if they avoided unprotected sex this wouldn't happen. Has nothing to do with this magic pill.

"more of them will suffer sustained emotional devastation"

If they avoided unprotected sex they could avoid this devastation - not because they lack a pill.

"more of them will end up bearing children they aren't prepared to support."

Again, it's the unprotected sex stuff that gets ya pregnant, not a pill that can't be obtained.

This is why middle America has not been won over by liberals. They attack a policy without admitting what the real problem is. It's like Kevin cannot even bring himself to say, "young girls should not have unprotected sex." Try it, Kevin - a few more conservatives might read your blather and agree with your other points. To write an entire post about this as if the cause of pregnancies is the lack of a pill demonstrates a real disconnect with the majority of Americans. I want young girls who have made a mistake to be able to terminate their preganancies, within ceertain limitations. But it is foolhardy to even discuss the topic without acknowledging the dangerous behavior that puts those same girls in that position in the first place. The solution does not lie in more abortions, the solution is to be found in fewer unwanted pregnancies. Let's teach our young children how to behave; the implied message here is go on and continue having unprotected sex - if you get preggers we've got a pill. Kevin doesn't even discuss the many dangers, aside from pregnancy, that can result from unprotected sex.

"Michael Specter's article in the New Yorker last week had some further info about von Eschenbach - such as his powerpoint slide opening a scientific presentation with something like "God Bless Us"."

Ohmigosh. Say the words God Bless Us and you must therefor be a fundamentalist Christian nutjob who doesn't deserve to be listened to. Does the poster even realize how often these words were spoken by Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter? Why this unbridled hatred for America and God and religion? Why won't middle america vote for you? - Bingo! You hate them.

One other poster had it right, you are trying to sell a line to whole swath of the US who don't agree with you. "you want to make it easier for their daughters to screw around without any consequences."

When you discuss these issues, you've got to at least touch on the causes. Girls get pregnant by having unprotected sex. We need to address that.

Spare the insults.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 16, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

But it is foolhardy to even discuss the topic without acknowledging the dangerous behavior that puts those same girls in that position in the first place.
Fine, let's talk about all the positions these girls get into - perferably with links to pictures and streaming video.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 16, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK
Now I remember why I left 6 months ago.

Good. Does that mean you'll leave again, perhaps for good?

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Nope - I'm back for good.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK
I think it is a bit more complicated than that when you consider the Constitutional and separation of church and state issues involved. If you are fine with birth control being dispensed in public schools, are you also fine with school teachers evangelizing their pupils to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?

Wow, that's an amazingly stupid equivalency, even considering that Don P. is the source. Provision of public health services which have a secular purpose and are designed to reduce the burden on the public -- including the public coffers -- caused by the birth of unwanted children are in no way parallel, in 1st Amendment analysis, to religious proselytization on the public dime.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
Nope - I'm back for good.

Forever, perhaps, but "good"? That stretches credibility.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

As I said, there are plenty of prior threads hashing that out previously between you and I. If anyone else wants to discuss this, please let me know.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Try selling to the parents who will vote in November that you want to make it easier for their daughters to screw around without any consequences.

Thanks Tbroz for highlighting the real view point of the conservative right. It ain't about life, its about punishment.

What a putz.

Posted by: Keith G on March 16, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Damn- I finally got taken by fake Tbrosz [Hangs his head in shame].

Posted by: Keith G on March 16, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: As I said, there are plenty of prior threads hashing that out previously between you and I. If anyone else wants to discuss this, please let me know.

According to Don P, his comments are the product of "blind, mechanical forces". As such there is not much point in discussing anything with him.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 16, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

Broken promises and false promises are not the same as lies. They may be just as bad but there is a difference.

Posted by: Ross Best on March 16, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Fine, you guys want to bring it on then? I wonder if cmdicely has learned about "precedent" yet in that fancy law school of his? Is it even ABA-accredited? Probably not, so how about we start slow.

"Precedent" means any judicial decision (you two know what those are, right?) that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases. That means, legally speaking, once birth control distribution is forced onto public schools, that opens the door for other such frivolous arguments, such as "school teachers evangelizing their pupils are MORE vital in the provision of public health services (which we now know, according to the Great and All-Knowing cmdicely, is the only fig-leaf that is required) i.e. to 'have a secular purpose', specifically for this proposal, designed to reduce the burden on the public - including the public coffers - caused not just by the birth of unwanted children, but other unsavory results and costs of fornication outside of marriage, let alone the costs of taking the Lord's name in vain, not keeping the Sabbath holy, dishonoring thy father and thy mother, and breaking the rest of the 10 Commandments." Get it?

I don't want ANY such chance of theocracy sneaking in the back door - so it's much better to draw one bright line to prevent that from happening - sorry you guys feels comfortable mixing church and state so much. Do you now at least recall the previous "parallel" I've drawn?

SecularAnimist - you, of all people, should get this. It is exactly why I've pointed out that Christian right-wing extremists are also being short-sighted in forcing the school prayer issue, because, once that cat is out of the bag, then ANY other religion's prayers are fair game to force on us too. I hope that gives you guys enough to chew on for a while.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Some analogous situations: doctors and nurses are also licensed by the state. Do you think hospitals and other employers should be legally required to fire nurses or doctors who refuses to perform or assist an abortion? In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, do you think they should be legally required to dismiss immediately any doctor or nurse who refuses to perform an assisted suicide? Of course, they're not legally required to do this. They're not legally allowed to do it, either. Do you think they should be?

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK
"Precedent" means any judicial decision (you two know what those are, right?) that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases. That means, legally speaking, once birth control distribution is forced onto public schools, that opens the door for other such frivolous arguments, such as "school teachers evangelizing their pupils are MORE vital in the provision of public health services (which we now know, according to the Great and All-Knowing cmdicely, is the only fig-leaf that is required) i.e. to 'have a secular purpose', specifically for this proposal, designed to reduce the burden on the public - including the public coffers - caused not just by the birth of unwanted children, but other unsavory results and costs of fornication outside of marriage, let alone the costs of taking the Lord's name in vain, not keeping the Sabbath holy, dishonoring thy father and thy mother, and breaking the rest of the 10 Commandments." Get it?

The standard you propose is nonsense. Frankly, classroom education is more like religious proselytization than birth control is in this respect, and so would be stronger (though, still, absolutely ludicrous) precedent than birth control would be for bringing proselytization into the public schools.

At any rate, birth control is in the public schools in many places. Judicial decisions where it has been challenged have not found any first amendment violation. Proselytization by public personnel in the schools has been challenged, and has been found to violate the first amendment. Its pretty clear that the courts do not consider the former precedent that demands allowing the latter.

Don P., you are insane. (Not only that, your style of insanity has changed enough since your previous tenure here that I suspect the new Don P. has no relation to the old one except having borrowed the abandoned handle.)

Posted by: cmdicely on March 16, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

LOL - just wait til you grasp the full impact of the Roberts Court.

Posted by: Don P. on March 16, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Go, ladies!

This administration is the worst thing to happen to women's reproductive choices since---you name it.

Posted by: BWR on March 16, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Don P." wrote: LOL - just wait til you grasp the full impact of the Roberts Court.

That sure sounds like Charlie, and not at all like Don P.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 17, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly