FDA whistleblower Susan Wood, with whom I've appeared publicly in the past, has a nice op-ed in the Post today about her former agency's continuing intransigence on the issue of Plan B contraception. I was a tad disappointed, though, by Wood's agnosticism about what's causing the continual delays in approving a safe, effective drug that would actually reduce the number of abortions if made widely available. Wood concludes her piece as follows:
It's been nearly three years since the first application came in to make Plan B emergency contraception available over the counter, so that women, including rape victims, could have a second chance to prevent an unintended pregnancy and the need for an abortion. How many chances have we missed? I still can't explain what is going on here, and why women 17 and older are still denied this product in a timely way. When did adult access to contraception become controversial? And why have we allowed it to happen?
Susan Wood, meet the Religious Right, which has lots of influence over this administration and doesn't care one whit for your impeccable logic. For religious conservatives, emergency contraception equals promiscuity, and promiscuity equals immorality. Period. Coming from this perspective, Christian conservatives are perfectly willing to upend science and the administrative process in order to block access to drugs that they view as contributing to increasing sexual behavior among teens (despite the total lack of data that the drugs actually have this effect). And this administration is perfectly willing to go along.
Susan Wood, please also meet Cristina Page, who has done a great job delving into the Christian Right's psyche on this matter. Here's how I've summarized Page's views:
Conservative Christians are cultural traditionalists who are trying to impose a larger moral vision upon society. They're also complete absolutists in their thinking. This leads them to oppose contraception out of the fear that it promotes promiscuity even though wider availability of contraception would nevertheless also decrease the number of abortions.
Precisely.
Now, don't get me wrong: Scientist whistleblowers like Susan Wood are invaluable. They peel back the curtain and let us know what's really going on in this administration. Without them we would be lost.
But at the same time, I think there's too much shying away from stating plainly what should be obvious. When science is being misused in this administration, the distortions tend to serve some particular interest group's agenda. When concerning ourselves with the so-called "politicization of science," we thus cannot escape political explanations for why it may be happening.
- Log in to post comments
Perhaps the anti-abortion "pro-lifers" realize that Plan B and its successors will drastically reduce their ability to make political hay out of contraception and birth control. Most abortions are the consequence of contraception failure (whether it was failure to function or failure to use). Early and convenient intervention with drugs like Plan B moves the arena from the sidewalks in front of abortion clinics to the hundreds of thousands of drugstores across the nation. It won't be a complete end of abortion, but the reduced reliance on surgical abortion for birth control will not be considered a "win" by the religious right.
So... hold on a sec, they're saying that the availability of contraception results in people having lots and lots of sex?
If only... :P
Yeah, believe it or not, they do actually think that, and no matter how many times it's been debunked, they persist in that belief.
It's kind of like arguing that the availability of seatbelts makes people drive more recklessly.
Not to sound like a radical feminist, but I think it's oversimplifying to say they just want to prevent sex. They want to control their own reproduction & reproductive drive, and (therefore) that of everyone else. They want sex to be about families & children, and lovers to be at home subservient, not potential equals. Because a lover has too much power to hurt you anyway, why let a lover also have any control over your livelihood or your social life? As many things as possible should be kept neat, clean, tidy and predictable. That lets you concentrate your energy on battling the things that really do matter.
It's a good analogy, but off the mark. The abstinence crowd is actually arguing that only some folks should drive at all, and Catholic doctrine says that nobody should ever wear seatbelts; car accidents are God's blessing.
Chris,
The last paragraph of the lead article brings up an important point. In my reply this morning at Chicago Independent Media Center (CHI.IMC) to a question from a person to my article I posted last night to CHI.IMC I identified the name of the person who I believe set the wheels in motion to have me fired in July 2005 from my job as a hydrologist at the National Weather Service (NWS) North Central River Forecast Center (NCRFC) which is located in Chanhassen, MN, related to climate change. The excerpt which follows contains that name. If you or others have any questions don't call me. Doing that would upset my wife. If you want to get in touch with me you know my email address.
Excerpt:
"[Note: In a brief interview, James R. Mahoney, the director of the Climate Change Science Program, confirmed that the program has been restricted ?on our use of information? from the National Assessment." ...
(From an article in ES&T by Paul D. Thacker, June 22, 2005 called "Blowing the whistle on climate change: Interview with Rick Piltz"
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/jun/policy/pt_pilt…
In January 2004 I was told by my supervisor, Mr. Daniel R. Luna, Hydrologist in Charge of NWS NCRFC in Chanhassen MN, that Mr. Mahoney wanted me fired for my issuance of a 30 Oct 2003 Press Release, which I arranged for with my own time and money. I was told by Mr. Luna that the timing of my Press Release was viewed by Mr. Mahoney as particularly troubling in that it came out the same day that climate change was being addressed in Congress.
Links to my paper and Press Release follow.
Link to 2003 paper:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman…
Link to 30 Oct 2003 Press Release:
"Senior Scientist: Rapid Global Warming is Happening Now" - 10/30/2003 8:28:00 AM, U.S. Newswire
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=22702
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70687/index.php#Comment-7…
Why don't we have a Pro-Sex lobby?
This is really the root of the problem, is it not?, which is that Christians think recreational sex is bad.
Let's fight this notion, and then we can fight everything that comes after.
If sex is ok, then safe sex is ok.
If safe sex is ok, that opens the floodgates to sex education, birth control, same-sex marriage, and so on.
Who wants to join me?
From my blog entry on the same editorial:
Isn't everyone forgetting the Religious Right's argument that Plan B is equivalent to abortion, or may be, by possibly interfering with implantation of a fertilized ovum? That means their moral opposition is consistent with one of their core principles.
That doesn't give them the right to impose that religious view on others. That's the fight here.
Forget their sexual prudery and willingness to stick their noses into other people's personal lives, and fight them on the political grounds that their religious point of view does not justify blocking access to the pills for everyone else.
The concept of moral hazard is not new, and the RR did not invent it.
Access to contraceptives may or may not remove disincentives to having sex, but the lack of access does not seem to affect significantly a person's willingness to risk pregnancy and disease through unprotected sex.
What amuses me is the unintended, but foreseeable, consequence of denying teenagers the access to contraceptives: the explosion of oral sex among teens as an acceptable, even commonplace, form of sexual activity.
BTW, I'm reminded of Margaret Atwood's visionary novel "The Handmaid's Tale" which was not rendered well on the screen. If I taught school, I would use this book and probably be fired immediately.