![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyear...then why is Plan B still lodged in an eternal bureaucratic quagmire rather than being out there on the market where women who need it can get it?
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:04 pm (UTC)If they were made OTC, insurance wouldn't cover them anymore which may make it harder for some of the less wealthy people to afford them (co-pay vs. full cost is not an insignificant difference).
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:21 pm (UTC)like Clariton, Advil, even Psuedefed, going OTC will drop the prices considerably into the more affordable range, because the market (those afraid to go to a doc or can't afford the insurance) can still get to them.
personally, my understanding is that one medical/beneficial reason for going to a Doc for a prescription is that with these kinds of chemicals can damage the system and a doc theoretically can do a few chemical tests to determine the best balance of efficacy vs. potential side-effects. its also to make sure that you understand other risks (they aren't 100%, don't take more than 1, 2 if you missed a day, yada yada) that you don't get when you don't bother to read the label in a store (nobody reads directions anymore - if they did, fewer VCRs and coffee makers would be flashing 12:00 out there).
i'm of mixed feelings about Plan B being OTC, though not for the same reason that the "life is sacred, now let them starve" crowd. there are risks with these kinds of chemicals in such high doses, even for a limited time, and enough people don't even take advil responsibly enough to be trusted with these - some may, because they have unprotected sex nightly, take them every night in which case they can go through a week at extremely elevated levels and that can have side effects whose permanence is still a big unknown (unless you dig deeply into the medical journals).
education remains key, and until we can trust people to educate themselves properly, a prescription is the main means by which the medical community knows that someone has been talked to about what they're about to take and what risks go with it.
as for the "girls" issue, that side of it is entirely bogus - denying them the ability to have sex responsibly does not change their desire to have sex when the "moment" comes. their theory that if you take away all of the other options for responsible sex they'll simply decide for abstinance (or if you give them the means for responsible sex, they'll decide for sex sooner) is total garbage, an ideal buried deep in their moral fibre that has no bearing on reality (or adolescent hormones) at all.
teenage sex will never be stopped. the best you can hope for is teenage responsibility, but as long as the powers-that-be deny teens the ability to even be responsible, they are guarenteeing unwanted teenage pregnancies, high school dropouts, starving children on welfare, and no hope of the cycle of poverty to ever change...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 09:42 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-03-01 11:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 03:55 pm (UTC)or at least, all the teenage females...
or all fertile men...
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 07:00 pm (UTC)