The Morning After Pill and the Religious Agenda
We in America have been told a lot of lies about sex, reproduction, and sexual health. A recent federal district court ruling in Tummino v. Torti has illuminated at least part of the system of corruption and anti-science religious agenda we’ve been subjected to over the past eight years. Judge Korman ruled that the FDA knowingly engaged in arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking regarding the emergency contraception known as “Plan B,” or the “morning after pill.”
For the rest of this post, I will use the words “religious” and “political” interchangeably. I do so with intent and without apologies. Anyone who doubts that the Bush administration was a theocracy needs to have their head examined. The evidence could not be more clear. At any rate, we should be familiar with the way the religious have pushed their agenda. We got a blueprint from the Shrub himself when he invaded Iraq. First, he stirred up emotional outrage, with the help of an unrelated terrorist attack. Then, he spread lies about the Iraqi government hiding WMDs, and trying to buy yellow cake uranium. Then, he strong-armed congress into doing his will with accusations of Anti-Americanism hanging over the heads of any dissenters.
We can look at the morning after pill agenda and see the same pattern. The emotion is already built into the debate. Since Roe v. Wade, hardly an election has gone by that hasn’t included emotional rhetoric about killing babies, or how godless heathens were turning America into a cesspool of sin and corruption because women were choosing not to allow every fetus the chance to grow into a human. Unlike Iraq, there was no need to steal emotion from somewhere else. The Religious Right has been stirring up emotion for decades.
Step Two is the most important in religious agenda programs. Misinformation is the key. With the morning-after pill, like Iraq, we had to believe that it was connected to a “known evil.” For the religious right, that meant linking the pill to abortion. There are still many people who have believed FOX News and their preachers. They think Plan-B is an abortifacient, and it’s not. The reason the pill only works within 72 hours is that it prevents fertilization. It does not kill an already fertilized egg. It works in essentially the same way as birth control pills. There is no controversy about this. The pill is not an abortion pill. The fact that it was ever called an abortion pill is evidence of the agenda. There was never a scientific reason to give it that name. (There were debunked studies indicating that the pill might be implicated in preventing implantation of fertilized eggs, but these studies were, as I said, not borne out by good science.) The United States, which grudgingly approved Plan B by prescription only, is the only country in the modern world which doesn’t have multiple legal options for emergency contraception.
The original request for OTC (over-the-counter) status for Plan B was submitted in 2001. The FDA found that it met all of the criteria for OTC, but a single doctor (at the behest of “political forces” stalled the approval process by citing “safety concerns” including whether or not people would be likely to use Plan B instead of the pill, or whether average women are smart enough to figure out how to take a single dose pill within 72 hours of having unprotected sex. (This, despite evidence from all over the world that women are indeed smart enough to figure it out, and piles of evidence indicating that women prefer birth control pills to Plan-B, given the choice.) After five years of debating “safety concerns” such as these, the FDA denied OTC availability. The decision was largely based on an “Advisory Committee” that was appointed with careful oversight by the Bush administration. Instead of finding highly qualified doctors, scientists, and pharmacists, the government’s stated goal was to create a “balance of opinion” on the committee. In case you are living in an alternate universe, this is political double-speak for “We were trying to change the decision based on non-scientific grounds.”
Let’s not make light of these facts. Unfortunately for the religious, the facts themselves are now incontrovertible. Even taking into account the incredibly unreasonable desire of the religious right to impose their religion on everybody, Plan B is not an abortion-inducing drug. It is functionally no different than the birth control pill, which is legal everywhere in America. There is not one single scientific reason why it should not be made available over the counter. Not one. The only objections to the pill have been religious in nature, but as they are wont to do, the religious have hidden their agenda under levels of thinly veiled concerns for “public safety.”
For those of my readers who think I’m too hard on religious moderates, take this as an example of why I must be so. This religious imposition onto non-religious Americans can only be defended on religious grounds. For anyone who believes that America is a country where religion and government must be separate, the only possible response to this situation has to be outrage. But… where was the moderate religious outrage? I’ll tell you. The religious moderate outrage over the morning after pill was virtually non-existent. Apart from a few Lutherans in Boston and a couple of Unitarians in Nebraska, it appears that nearly the entire body of believers in America sat by silently while science was mocked and the Constitution trampled.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Most moderates will never stand up against fundamentalists. They will not side with us evil atheists because this is not about living together peacefully. It’s about religion versus science. As I wrote yesterday, the intellectual battle has been won. There is no debate between creation/evolution, and there ought not be a debate over either abortion rights or the morning after pill. Intelligent Design has no place in any school. The only argument against abortion rights is religious, and so it should be immediately dismissed without further comment. The morning-after pill is safe and functional. Any religious moderate who is not standing actively against any religious zealot trying to impose his will on me or any of my fellow American atheists is complicit in America’s descent into theocracy.
Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment
- Image by kjd via Flickr
http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=faqs_dat.php
CRC FAQs- Myths and Facts
Over 300 organizations representing the interests of the religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities have lent their support for ratification of the CRC. However, a small number of political organizations (seems to be mainly Parentalrights.org) have spearheaded efforts to oppose U.S. ratification. These groups have sought to minimize the Convention’s value by employing “scare tactics” to fallaciously portray the CRC as a threat to American families. In general, opponents largely base their arguments on unsubstantiated claims regarding national sovereignty and interference in the parent-child relationship.
They allege that ratification of the CRC:
These false claims are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. In many cases, the Convention’s opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan Administration during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights U.S. citizens have under our Constitution.
Myth #1: The Convention would become “Supreme Law” of the land.
Truth: As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. In addition, the CRC is not a “self-executing treaty” – it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.
Truth: The U.S. can ratify the CRC with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). RUDs address specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and a particular Convention. Reservations modify a treaty’s provisions (e.g. if a provision of the CRC is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. can file a “reservation” to the provision so that the provision does not apply). Understandings and Declarations help to clarify how the U.S. believes a particular provision should be interpreted. RUDs do not legally exempt the U.S. from adhering to a provision.
Truth: The Convention contains no language or directives with regard to how it should be implemented. Each country is responsible for determining how to implement this. Moreover, as stated in the text of the Convention, any State that is a party to the CRC can nullify its ratification by providing written notification of “denunciation” to the UN General Secretary.
Truth: The CRC does not grant the UN and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC) enforcement authority over the U.S. and its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are being met. As a party to both the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the U.S. is already required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlining implementation and monitoring efforts.
Myth #2: The CRC undermines the primacy of the parent-child relationship.
Truth: The CRC recognizes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…”, and acknowledges “that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.” (Preamble to the CRC)
Truth: The Convention repeatedly underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the Convention to support this, particularly with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 18, 22, and 27.
Myth #3: Ratification would allow the UN to dictate how parents should raise their children.
Truth: The CRC does not, by any means, grant the UN authority to control, govern, or police U.S. policies for children.
Truth: Under the Convention, parental responsibility is protected from government interference. Article 5 states that Governments should respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties of parents to raise their children.
Truth: There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children. Ratification of the Convention would not prevent parents from homeschooling their children.
Myth #4: The CRC embraces the view that children are autonomous agents who are capable, in all areas, of making adult decisions and dealing with adult situations.
Truth: The Convention does not extend to children all of the same rights accorded to adults, such as the right to vote and unrestricted freedom to make independent decisions.
Truth: The framers of the CRC understood that children’s ability to exercise certain rights is dependent upon their age and maturity and influenced by their culture, environment, and life experiences. The Convention encourages parents to deal with rights issues with their children “…in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” (Articles 5 and 14)
Myth #5: The Convention gives children the right to sue their parents.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the “right” to sue their parents. Any legal action brought by children against their parents must be based on existing federal or state laws, not on provisions contained in the CRC. Currently, children in the U.S. (through a legally-appointed guardian) are allowed to bring legal action against their parents only for injuries sustained from physical abuse or gross neglect.
Truth: Provisions in the CRC regarding a child’s right to legal assistance pertain only to children who have been accused of committing a crime and subsequently arrested, detained, or imprisoned for such violation of the law. (Articles 37 and 40)
Myth #6: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions.
Truth: The CRC maintains no explicit position on family planning and abortion issues and does not define when childhood begins. Ratifying countries remain responsible for forming public policy on these issues through their own national legislative and judicial processes. The Holy See (Vatican) was one of the first parties to ratify the CRC. Moreover, countries that have strict anti-abortion laws, such as Ireland and the Philippines, have ratified the Convention.
Truth: The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in responding to State parties’ reports, has repeatedly called attention to the important roles parents play in their children’s lives, voicing its concern for the high rates of adolescent pregnancy and abortion found in certain countries.
Truth: Article 6 of the CRC provides for a child’s right to privacy. Opponents contend that this right would allow children to have abortions without securing parental consent. However, this provision was included in the Convention to protect children from governmental abuses. In addition, Articles 5 and 14 reflect the Convention’s respect for parental guidance and responsibility in raising their children and helping them to learn how to exercise their rights in an appropriate manner.
Myth #7: The CRC allows children to participate in any religion of their choosing.
Truth: The Convention grants children the right to practice their religion free from government interference. The CRC supports the right of children to examine and ask questions about their beliefs, but also specifically recognizes the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their children in these matters. The Holy See and many countries with strong religious traditions have ratified the CRC.
Myth #8: Ratification will allow children to join gangs and racist organizations. Parents will not be able to oversee children’s interactions with others.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the right to join gangs, cults, or racist organizations, but the right to peacefully assemble. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already guarantees this right.
Truth: The Convention does not usurp parents’ authority to prevent their children from associating with persons of “dubious” character, such as pedophiles, gang members, etc. Parents are responsible for ensuring their children do not associate with people who do not have the best interests of their children in mind.
Myth #9: The Convention provides children with an “unrestricted” right to access any information they want, including pornography.
Truth: There is no language in the Convention that gives children the right to “unlimited” freedom of information, including access to pornography and other obscene materials. Current U.S. laws protect children from exposure to inappropriate materials, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Telecommunication’s Act of 1996.
Truth: Ratification of the CRC would not prevent parents from activating televisions’ “V-chips” or installing Internet firewalls and other content filtering programs that protect children from viewing inappropriate material. Parents would not be precluded from restricting their children’s access to violent video games, music with obscene lyrics, etc.
For a complete and rational analysis of the issues surrounding this convention please go to this Harvard Law school web site.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158
Suggested action:
This is a perfect teaching moment. For those who have time and wish to be involved here is a suggestion. Go to www.alerts.google.com and make a news alert.
http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=
Use key words like ParentalRights or Hoekstra and Constitutional amendment
You will doubtless get many hits every day. Go to the blog or website and post the suggested comment. Or, make one you like. There are probably tens of thousands of Christian homeschoolers that are publishing verbatim whatever they get from the HSLDA or ParentalRights.org web sites.
We probably should create a web site or facebook group to combat the propaganda of the dominionists. Didn’t know Michael Ferris was a dominionist fascist? Take some time to read the articles on talk2action, Americans United, or People for the American Way.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Is the Constitution Too Hard to Amend? (themoderatevoice.com)
Why Don’t Northern Europeans Believe in God?
Estonians have branded themselves as the least religious European nation according to a new Gallup poll that lends credence to the notion that faith is closely tied to living standards.
The northern Baltic state abutting Russia and Latvia counts only 14% of its population as believers. Nearby Sweden and and Denmark ranked similarly at under 20%. The Gallup people said highly developed countries with a strong social welfare state tend to see lower levels of religiosity. The United States ranks highest among developed countries with two-thirds of the population professing their faith. Much regional variation is noted in the US however with southern states resembling “tribal societies in Southern Africa” but with only 42% of Vermonters going to church.
via Following Experts and Ideas — Big Think Blog.
Parental rights amendment – Act II
- Image via Wikipedia
The parental rights amendment is going to be re-introduced by Representative Hoekstra:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={48D114CD-BD70-4776-A32A-5661013D8897}
This time he has rounded up 60 co-sponsors. Write to the sponsors and let them know we don’t want them messing with our constitution.
My message to the sponsors:
The idea that parents lack rights in the United States is risible. Many state laws have purposely been written to allow parents to deny their children educational benefits they are entitled to. Some children actually suffer and die because of their parent’s superstitious religious beliefs.
Our constitution does not need amending. If anything, we should consider passing laws that make parenting education and testing mandatory. Perhaps we even need to go so far as issuing licenses to couples who want to procreate.
You cannot even give a child a haircut in this country without passing an examination that certifies you are qualified to cut hair. Likewise, teachers, child care center workers and anyone providing services to children must undergo education and prove they are qualified. For some jobs, a criminal background check is required.
What does it take to legally create a new life? Nothing. How are couples qualified to be parents? There is no way to know because they are not required to actually know anything about parenting or be tested. Sweden has had comprehensive parenting education in place for decades. The only people who object to it do so because they are zealots and they claim the bible has all the child rearing guidance they need.
Why should we as a society tolerate incompetent faith based parenting? We could fashion public policies that would save hundreds of little lives and millions of cases of neglect and abuse each year. All that stops us is the political motivation and a sick infatuation with individualism.
« Newer Posts
