The FDA Kisses The Ass Of The Religious Right
While trying not to look like it's kissing the ass of the religious right. While delaying a decision on whether the morning-after pill can be made available without a prescription. While pretending to care about science and data, and not just a lot of people's primitive belief in the big Imaginary Friend. Here's an excerpt from a New York Times editorial:
Such issues will require a 60-day comment period, when opponents of the pill will barrage the agency with reasons why the pill should not be made available without a prescription, followed by an indefinite period of thumb-sucking within the agency. All we have is a pledge from the agency's commissioner, Lester Crawford, that he will expedite the decision, but after the agency's past refusals to act, that pledge must be taken skeptically.The agency's justification for the delay is that Plan B supposedly raises unprecedented policy issues, including whether age can be a criterion for determining whether a drug should be available only by prescription or sold over the counter, and whether the same package and dosage can be used for both versions. That explanation is hard to accept at face value. The agency has known for more than a year that the manufacturer, to surmount previous F.D.A. objections, is proposing that age be such a criterion. If profound issues have been raised, the agency has had plenty of time to grapple with them.
The morning-after pill has been safely used by millions of women in this country and abroad, and an F.D.A. advisory committee overwhelmingly recommended that it be made available without a prescription. If the F.D.A. ultimately uses age-criterion issues as an excuse for blocking easy access, the manufacturer should apply to sell the pill over the counter to any woman, regardless of age.
Guess what: As I've written before, you can walk into a pharmacy in France and buy it just by asking for it, and the streets aren't filled with teenagers using it as primary birth control. In fact, when I've bought a few packages at a time in France (to save time and aggravation of going to the doctor if I need them in the USA), they always summon the pharmacist who comes out with a worried look on his face to instruct me it's only to be used in emergencies. "Je sais, je sais, monsieur," I reply. "I live in a backward, fundamentalist nation, so I buy them here where it's easy, and keep them in the medicine chest."
I respect the fact that you're an atheist. In fact, I appreciate it. I'd be more worried about a country that DIDN'T allow people to be atheists. Now, that's scary.
But as for why I believe in God, people often ask things like "Where was He in the middle of the tsunamis?" or "Why didn't He do something to prevent 9/11?"
Answer is, it's our world and He gave it to us to use or abuse as we see fit. As for where is He? He's there when people give of themselves to help those who suffered in the aftermath of 9/11 or the tsunamis.
Quite simply, science cannot and will never be able to explain away the soi-disant chemical reactions that account for things like love, compassion, charity. Anything that makes us better (or even worse, for that matter) that the sum of our chemical constituents cannot be accounted for by science. So, for this reason, I take the only logical conclusion: there is something apart from ourselves that accounts for all this, since science can't.
But, I've listened to you expound upon why you don't believe in God. So, I just thought I'd share why I do. And this isn't an effort to proselytize or try to change anyone's mind. Just an explanation as to where I come from.
Practical Patrick at August 30, 2005 7:04 AM
"Guess what: As I've written before, you can walk into a pharmacy in France and buy it just by asking for it, and the streets aren't filled with teenagers using it as primary birth control."
Well, it may be news for American law-makers, but the exact same thing occurs in many other areas. For example, in my country, Brazil, we have far less restrictions for selling beer and liquor. Although bars are not allowed to serve drinks to minors, any teenager can go to a supermarket and buy packs of beer. Do we see lots of teenagers doing that, or drunk in the streets? Of course not. I have seen much more underage drinking here in US in the first year of my stay than in my entire life there. Statistics show a very low rate of underage alcohol use in my country.
American law-makers seem to have a tendency to believe that making something legal will immediately translate into everybody abusing it. I think reality proves that the "prohibited" is always more appealing, specially for adolescents, and responsible parenting, not laws, is what teaches people to act responsibly and make sound decisions.
Brazilian in US at August 30, 2005 9:11 AM
I'm just glad we have the party of smaller government in power.
Oh, waitaminnit.....
Frank at August 30, 2005 1:53 PM
Exactly, Brazilian. Thanks for stopping by. I was allowed alcohol when I was a child (a taste of whatever my dad was drinking, a glass of wine on special occasions). Probably because of that, I was not interested in drinking it, nor did I ever get drunk in college. I just found the idea uninteresting. Ahah...as Brazilian notes, maybe if you don't ban stuff, maybe it won't be so thrilling to binge on!
Amy Alkon at August 30, 2005 4:07 PM
I'm just glad the UC system is refusing to play ball with the fundanutters.
(And how come no one ever thanks me for stopping by? Especially over at Cathy Seipp's blog....)
Frank at August 30, 2005 6:36 PM
We shouldn't have an FDA. Make a certain number of clinical studies mandatory before a pill hits the market and force all studies to be public record. Let lawsuits regulate the drug industry. It's going to work for Vioxx and won't allow politicization of things like birth control.
And, more importantly, we'll have one less useless government agency to pay for.
If abortion and/or contraception are truly murder, why won't the christians just let the Easter Bunny sort it out?
Did I say Easter Bunny? I meant God. Sometimes I get them confused.
little ted at August 30, 2005 7:15 PM
Hi, Frank. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency of Conservatives claiming they want smaller government yet wanting to be in charge of everything.
Patrick at August 31, 2005 4:26 AM
Leave a comment