Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Morality through the legal system
I've read a number of articles regarding the Bush administration's tendency to let political ideology trump hard science. From drug policy to issues relating to stem cell research, science takes a back seat to the political - and religious - dictates of the current administration. Now, the "morning after pill" (a mechanism for preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex which COULD constitute an "abortion" under certain circumstances) could be rejected for over the counter use even though the FDA's expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve it.
That should have been a slam dunk to approval, but conservative members of congress started to lobby the FDA to stop it. The chief arguments, as outlined by one of its opponents (Concerned Women for America, more on that later), were as follows:
In particular, she said, the panel ignored studies that indicate emergency contraception leads to reduced use of condoms and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. She also said she believed there is insufficient information about the effects of repeated use of emergency contraception, and about the possibility of the drug being "slipped" to women without their knowledge.
Regarding the first, by that reasoning, alcohol should only be available with a prescription, because it might lead you to get knocked up in the first place. This is nanny-state reasoning, the kind of thing that Republicans are SUPPOSED to oppose, but don't when it comes to the moral dictates they seem to want to impose on the American people. People should have the CHOICE to use this drug. Even pro-lifers should have a hard time treating a handful of undifferentiated cells the same as a fetus three months hence. If you TRULY want people to value that "life," then convince individuals not to use the drug. Don't try to legislate morality by making it ILLEGAL to use it.
As for the final two, they are, quite simply, FUD. This drug has been studied EXTENSIVELY, and physicians across the country are widely supportive of its over the counter status. Opponents, however, can't appear to just be a bunch of federal nannies, so they have to provide the APPEARANCE of scientific doubt. Well, it's just that, appearance, and it should give one pause to consider that these "doubts" are only coming from people motivated with a pro-life stance. Check out the web site for Concerned Women for America (the group who was the source for my previously-cited objections). They are a christian pro-life advocacy group. Can they be scientific about this issue? Perhaps. But my experience of these groups is that science is last on their list, and besides, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA suports the over the counter status of this morning after pill.
Bottom line, I hate it when I see government trying to push the American people towards their vision of morality. Legislating morality is NOT the right approach. Spend time motivating individuals to make the RIGHT choice. But a morning after pill falls WELL into the reasonable middle ground between those that want to treat the instant of conception as the start of human life and those who don't want any protection until that baby pops out in the delivery room.
The bipolar nature of the abortion debate in America has reached epic proportions. "Dilation and extraction" abortions have been banned, and that seems entirely reasonable to me. Make a move in the other direction - a morning after pill that is available over the counter - as a reasonable compromise.
I've read a number of articles regarding the Bush administration's tendency to let political ideology trump hard science. From drug policy to issues relating to stem cell research, science takes a back seat to the political - and religious - dictates of the current administration. Now, the "morning after pill" (a mechanism for preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex which COULD constitute an "abortion" under certain circumstances) could be rejected for over the counter use even though the FDA's expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve it.
That should have been a slam dunk to approval, but conservative members of congress started to lobby the FDA to stop it. The chief arguments, as outlined by one of its opponents (Concerned Women for America, more on that later), were as follows:
In particular, she said, the panel ignored studies that indicate emergency contraception leads to reduced use of condoms and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. She also said she believed there is insufficient information about the effects of repeated use of emergency contraception, and about the possibility of the drug being "slipped" to women without their knowledge.
Regarding the first, by that reasoning, alcohol should only be available with a prescription, because it might lead you to get knocked up in the first place. This is nanny-state reasoning, the kind of thing that Republicans are SUPPOSED to oppose, but don't when it comes to the moral dictates they seem to want to impose on the American people. People should have the CHOICE to use this drug. Even pro-lifers should have a hard time treating a handful of undifferentiated cells the same as a fetus three months hence. If you TRULY want people to value that "life," then convince individuals not to use the drug. Don't try to legislate morality by making it ILLEGAL to use it.
As for the final two, they are, quite simply, FUD. This drug has been studied EXTENSIVELY, and physicians across the country are widely supportive of its over the counter status. Opponents, however, can't appear to just be a bunch of federal nannies, so they have to provide the APPEARANCE of scientific doubt. Well, it's just that, appearance, and it should give one pause to consider that these "doubts" are only coming from people motivated with a pro-life stance. Check out the web site for Concerned Women for America (the group who was the source for my previously-cited objections). They are a christian pro-life advocacy group. Can they be scientific about this issue? Perhaps. But my experience of these groups is that science is last on their list, and besides, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA suports the over the counter status of this morning after pill.
Bottom line, I hate it when I see government trying to push the American people towards their vision of morality. Legislating morality is NOT the right approach. Spend time motivating individuals to make the RIGHT choice. But a morning after pill falls WELL into the reasonable middle ground between those that want to treat the instant of conception as the start of human life and those who don't want any protection until that baby pops out in the delivery room.
The bipolar nature of the abortion debate in America has reached epic proportions. "Dilation and extraction" abortions have been banned, and that seems entirely reasonable to me. Make a move in the other direction - a morning after pill that is available over the counter - as a reasonable compromise.
