Women's Rights... *Sigh*

The problem with extremist political emails and articles is that they so rarely get the facts straight (if indeed they care about them at all.) The ideological echo-chamber tends to trump these things up to a fever pitch. A few misreadings and updatings and the thing gets totally lost in emotion. Here's the one that got forwarded to me today:

Subject: Womens Rights

PLEASE READ:

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager, the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then
and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. In the book Dr.Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives for to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less. There is something you can do. Below is a statement to be sent to the White House, opposing the placement of Hager.

At the end the email has a typical sign and pass-on petition to email to the White House. Of course the appointment was two years ago now and Dr. Hager has been on the board for this whole time. Any fears you have abouthim based on this email are probably wrong at this point. Anyway, don't bother sending the petition in... it's too late.

Now, from the obvious lack of complete logical arguments and corroborating evidence, we should immediately be suspicious of the email. The email jumps from a book title to the insistance that Dr. Hager's ideas are "far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology." The email attributes the suggestion of reading the Bible to Dr. Hager as an aid for PMS. This is really an innocent recommendation from a actively Christian doctor to his (assumedly) actively Christian patients. However, the email plays this up as if he considered this the only remedy for PMS without actually saying that outright. Three out of four readers here were under the impression that Dr. Hager was doing this after reading the email. Of course reading it carefully you can't find that definitively stated. Let's call it the "suggestive sentence in context" technique. The email also posits the idea that "Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient" simply because he helped edit a book which contained that idea.

At the end the email goes rabid, more or less claiming that being a religious person is dangerous. It also claims that Dr. Hager has some crazy religious views that prevent him from making sound medical decisions which is not evidenced in the email. It is merely an assumption based on the fact that he actively participates in his faith.

So, what do we do with these emails? Yup, Truth or Fiction.com! And they say:

The Truth
Dr. David Hager is a part of the teaching staff of the University of Kentucky College of Medicine and has developed a reputation as an expert on gynecologic infections. This eRumor was circulated before Dr. Hager actually became a member of the committee. He is now a part of the panel, although he did not become the chairman of it. He is a conservatively oriented physician and is a speaker and author in the Christian community who describes himself as pro-life. He objected to this eRumor saying that he does not know who wrote it and that no one had interviewed him for it and that some of it is not accurate. He says that he does not refuse to prescribe birth control for unmarried patients. He is an advocate of abstinence but for patients who do not make that choice, he is not opposed to birth control prescription. He also says that his opposition to RU-486 was based on his concerns about the safety of the drug. He says RU-486 was approved under an "Accelerated Approval Process" reserved exclusively for anti-AIDS and anti-cancer drugs and an antihypertensive agent. He says that normally the FDA requires one or more than one randomized, controlled trials before approving a drug, which was not done for RU-486. He also says that he does not believe that standard birth control pills are abortifacient and has never written it. He says he co-edited a book that referenced various views about birth control pills but that not all of those views were his own. Regarding his views of how to deal with stress-related disorders in women, he says "I have always offered a holistic approach to therapy. I suggest diet/exercise changes, medications as needed, counseling when required, and meditation/prayer."

Last updated 11/30/03

Urban Legends also has an article about this petition/email.

The article also appears on the Kern County Democratic Party web page with plenty of added emphasis to make sure youget the proper impressions. :)

The Garden of the Mind

Listening to: Brian Eno - Ambient 1: Music For Airports
Weather: pale grey and crisp, Timothy the mailman has his winter hat on today!
Mood: (woo hoo it's Friday)

Thanks to Anu Garg for this quote today. It accompanies the Word of the Day email:

"The mind is but a barren soil; a soil which is soon exhausted, and will produce no crop, or only one, unless it be continually fertilized and enriched with foreign matter." -Joshua Reynolds, painter (1723-1792)

Just something nice and soothing to contemplate while I'm working up a heavy morals/religion postulate this afternoon. Of course, if you look at Joshua Reynolds's paintings you might wonder what he considers "foreign" matter... A little overly sentimental for me... though I admit, I'm not a Rococo fan.

Observant visiters might note the new happy picture of my beautiful wife and myself to the right. As part of an experiment to see how many predetory male bloggers there, I've changed my gender status to unspecified and included this image of the two of us. We'll see if it increases my profile views... girl bloggers with pictures in their profiles get the most views... LOL. If that doesn't lure them in perhaps a picture of her on the beach in Hawai'i might do it?

CFC Blacklists?

This is from the always informative EFF newsletter today (which is not yet available on their website):

* EFF, Nonprofits Challenge Secret Government Blacklists

Funding for Charities Should Not Be Tied to Screening

Washington, DC - EFF this week joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and close to a dozen other nonprofit organizations in filing for an injunction from the US District Court in Washington, DC, to stop the federal government from requiring charities to use blacklists in order to receive payroll donations from federal employees. The groups argue that the new requirement, which was implemented without any notice or public comment period, is not authorized by statute and violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) enables federal employees to contribute easily to their favorite nonprofit organizations through automatic payroll deductions. In 2003 alone, this program brought over
$248 million to thousands of charities. Earlier this year, the government for the first time began requiring all organizations participating in the CFC to certify that they have screened every employee and expenditure against a series of blacklists created by the government on the basis of secret information. Charities that refuse to sign the certification cannot participate in the CFC, even if they meet all other requirements.

"The government can't force charities to become its 'anti-terrorism enforcers' simply because federal employees donate to those charities," said Kevin Bankston, EFF Attorney and Equal Justice Works/Bruce J.
Ennis Fellow. "EFF refuses to violate the privacy of its clients and employees by screening them against secretly compiled blacklists. It was wrong during the McCarthy era, and it's wrong now."

EFF participated in the CFC program for two years prior to the blacklist certification requirement but withdrew from the program earlier this year in protest.

The invocation of McCarthyism is a little hasty. They did it to make a big impression, I know. I do it when I write letters too. Here's what is troubling me about the whole affair. WHY... are the data behind the blacklists secret? The Bush administration has been accused of being overly secretive and this is a good example of that impression at work. Are they more secretive than other presidential administrations? No, I don't think so. I think they are less skilled at coming up with feints and distractions to explain the secrecy. Frankly, I don't care how they came up with the lists. What struck me immediately was that there is no explanation of why it's a secret. If there's a reason they can't explain the data behind the blacklist, then let's hear that... I'm really sick of the "national security" excuse as a catch all for every secret.

I think we live in a world, an era, where secrecy and the unknown is just going to have to be part of our lives. We couldn't do anything if we demanded detailed answers to every nagging question. I'm not demanding an explanation of the gaps in unified field theory when I microwave a burrito to eat as I type up a rant for my blog. The vagraies of quantum cooking just aren't going to impact the fact that I want a burrito while I type. In politics, which is almost as complicated as quantum physics, I don't need to know the detailed facts. What I want to know is, WHY are things are an unknown. This is where the Bush administration fails... it cannot confidently explain the reason the data are a secret. I can think of plenty of good solid reasons to explain this action that do not impact national security, but it's just my guess... I can also think of plenty of really evil and scarey reasons to do this, but that's just my guess as well.

At the basic level, if the federal government is going to provide this service to it's employees as a convenience, it has the right to set requirements for its use. I imagine the real concern is that the federal government doesn't want to be wiring money directly to charities that are funneling that money to terrorists in some form. The position seems to be, if a federal employee wants to give money to a charity that is not qualified to participate in the program, then they can do so on their own time and write their own check. EFF and the rest of the affected charities seem put off by the idea that federal employees might not take that time on their own to write a check. EFF claims to have withdrawn from the program in protest, but in reality, if they aren't going to screen their employees, then they aren't elligible to participate anyway.

This is a customer driven scenario here. The EFF is selling its charitable activities to the public. The public is buying those activities and the federal government is handling the money transfer. If the EFF wants to accept money by this route, then I suppose it has to play by those rules. This is like McDonalds complaining that the health industry is monkeying with their sales by giving the public dietary guidelines. If McDonalds wants to sell its product it must play ball with the public and give them what they want. It can't protest good eating habits and refuse to sell food to health conscious people.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a stretch. But you'd think these charities considered themselves above their donators. If they want to get this convenience from the employer of federal workers, then they have to chin-up to the bar. If they don't want to chin-up then they aren't going to get the convenience of automatic donations. If EFF et al. was intersted in getting this convenience (provided by the federal government of its own free will) then they cannot dictate its execution. It really has nothing to do with them at all. If I'm going to donate to a charity, maybe I want to know more about it... If the charity isn't going to tell me where my money is going, then I'm highly inclined to not give them my money.

Which brings us back to the question of these lists. Who's on them and why are some charities so reluctant to certify that they are not employing or giving money to anyone on those lists? If I have Adolf Hitler working at my charity and we buy office supplies from Pol Pot, then I can expect people to have a problem with donating money. I can only assume that there are names on the list like John Q. Ordinary with no obvious ties to terrorists... why does his employment at my charity make us inelligable for the program? I'd want to know too. If the DOJ had a reason like, "he's related to an ongoing investigation involving XYZ," then I might be more inclined to be understanding even if I didn't know all the facts of the case. However, I'd want to know the status of the case and how long old John can expect to be part of the investigation. A suspected murderer can only be held so long without charging him/her; the same should apply to these lists.

The biggest flaw with the Ashcroft DOJ was that they never clearly defined limits or intentions in much of their legistlation. Which is why it has been such a fiasco. Ashcroft always left himself huge swaths of grey-area to wiggle in. This puts a huge burden on the Supreme COurt to hack out the intentions of laws in the courts which leads me to believe that the laws may have been written to deliberately have a powerful short term effect in handling potential terrorists with tight time tables, and never stand the test of the judicial process. That is to say, a bad law gives police the tools they need to disrupt terrorist networks with trumpted up charges based on circumstantial evidence in the short run, while never intending to actually prosecute or incarcerate them in the long run. It's similar to an RIAA strategy which is being thwarted by the fair use offensive I noted a few weeks ago.

As usual, I'm coming down in the middle on this one. The EFF is whining too much and about the wrong things, and the federal government is being too secretive... or at least not very informative.

A Fun One For Friday!!

rave dancers!

Many of my readers are probably descendent from the rave scene. Those that are will appreciate this fun classification of the dances associated with techno music. Or in this specific case classic acid and trance hooks. Smile, it's Friday!