(no subject)

[unbibium]

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?

Comments

[jwgh]

For what it's worth:

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.

There is a chapter in a book I co-edited, that purports this idea, but it was included in our book to offer an alternative opinion, not because we believed the idea.

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!

[mezdeathhead.livejournal.com]

from what devi was saying, the story i did a cut and paste on was actually pretty old, and the guy's already appointed.

i read that same bit, and i'm not sure if i find it genuine, either. but thanks for the input!