(no subject)
Dec. 5th, 2003 05:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So I hear that they've invented a male birth control pill. Awesome, I think. This'll give men the opportunity to take some initiative, and prevent all the pregnancies caused by selfish losers who won't wear a condom.
But not in America, because Bush is going to fill the FDA with Jesus freaks, including a Dr. W. David Hager, who "appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient." Common consensus is that his first target will be the RU-486 emergency contraceptive, though it's a safe bet that he'll dismiss the male birth control pill as being "anti-family."
mezdeathhead is vectoring a petition that invites you to spread the word to anyone who cares about women's rights, and E-mail the President. I seriously doubt he'll read a single one of them, nor would it sway him it every woman in America e-mailed him. If Jesus can trump scientific facts in the mind of a scientist, then he can trump voters in the mind of a politician who would hire such a scientist, and who got the bright idea to confine protesters to "free speech zones" where they can't spoil his fun.
I'm looking for an alternative. If mez's post is to be believed, then Congress can't stop him. Is there anyone who can?
But not in America, because Bush is going to fill the FDA with Jesus freaks, including a Dr. W. David Hager, who "appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient." Common consensus is that his first target will be the RU-486 emergency contraceptive, though it's a safe bet that he'll dismiss the male birth control pill as being "anti-family."
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I'm looking for an alternative. If mez's post is to be believed, then Congress can't stop him. Is there anyone who can?
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 05:09 pm (UTC)This is, of course, why drug companies aren't developing AIDS medications.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 04:53 am (UTC)In some cases, it surely is. There are various different kinds of birth-control pills, including the estrogen/progesterone pills, and the progesterone-only pills. In women where these pills are not successful at suppressing ovulation, they are also able to prevent implantation, which some people consider 'abortifacient'. Of course, this is what people with nothing better to do DEBATE.
However, the 'common birth control pill' for women IS used as an abortifacient when it is taken as a 'morning-after pill', a series of estrogen/progesterone pills taken over a few days after potential conception. But that doesn't always work, thus the need for something like RU-486.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-07 07:29 pm (UTC)(That joke is funnier in the original Latin.)
speaking as a man speaking as a woman:
Date: 2003-12-05 05:25 pm (UTC)Plus, the patch could come printed with the logo of your favorite sports team or pickup truck manufacturer.
Meanwhile, the only thing that can stop the current executive is a new executive.
Re: speaking as a man speaking as a woman:
Date: 2003-12-05 09:30 pm (UTC)I can imagine crazy misunderstandings where they both say they're on the pill but they really aren't.
On the other hand, a lot of men might not be too eager to take a Reminder I'm Not Getting Laid every day.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 09:28 pm (UTC)I actually hope most of the stuff I hear turns out to be an exaggeration. And I hope I realize that people exaggerate more often then not when speaking of politics, so I can quit tearing my hair out.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 09:55 pm (UTC)i can't trust everything i read, i know that much. but i post something immediately if it's something that pisses me off. but then, i find out that what i found out might have been wrong. but then, i find out it was right. but then, i find out etc etc etc.
i'm too paranoid to believe the right, and i'm too uneasy to believe the left. i find out that the mainstream news is lying to me, then i learn michael moore is lying to me. who isn't lying to me?
i apologize for posting so quickly if i was wrong, i apologize for not understanding it all if i'm right. guh. long-winded.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 09:56 pm (UTC)I'm becoming disenchanted with the internet for this and other reasons. It's becoming too much of a strain.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-05 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 08:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 10:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 08:46 am (UTC)Doing a search for the guy's name turns up a bunch of Christian sites that quote him on the subject of RU-486. (Plus a bunch of leftish sites more or less saying what you said.) [The way I found the response was by searching for "David Hager" abortifacient; I previously did google and news.google.com searches for his name to see if there was any response by him or defence of him by anyone, but didn't really find much.] He's also quoted in an article on abstinance pledges by teenagers (he says that 'continuous support' is needed for the pledges to be successful).
The response I quoted (which, of course, how do I really know it was written by him? I don't) is pretty poorly written. I don't think that's how 'purports' is supposed to be used, and there are other similar errors. In general his disavowal of the 'standard dose birth control pills are abortifacient' seems kind of disingenuous; I'd have to actually see the context of the passage in the book to decide for myself what exactly is going on there. (And yet will I run out to the library and look it up?)
My feeling, which may or may not be correct and is not based on a whole lot, is that it's worth opposing this guy inasmuch as we can, but that if he does get appointed (as seems likely) it won't be the end of the world. Hopefully I'm right!
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 10:22 am (UTC)i read that same bit, and i'm not sure if i find it genuine, either. but thanks for the input!
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 09:02 pm (UTC)Makes more sense to fire blanks than to hope that kevlar vest holds up.
-- Schwa ---