Bush has appointed an extra conservative doctor to be in charge of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Snopes says it is true!
Stockpile your BC pills now. I'll be writing to all my big pharmacy chains, asking them to insist that their pharmacists do their jobs regardless of "concience clauses" that some pharmacists are using to deny women birth control and/or the morning after pill.
Ugh, I know. I guess Mengele wasn't available. Have you seen this? Women wrongly warned cancer, abortion tied (http://salon.com/mwt/wire/2004/11/10/abortion_cancer/index.html):
Nov. 10, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Women seeking abortions in Mississippi must first sign a form indicating they've been told abortion can increase their risk of breast cancer. They aren't told that scientific reviews have concluded there is no such risk.
When I published Miscarriage of Justice (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/24/life_sciences/), some of the mail Salon got in response was to the effect that it was liberal hysteria. I'd prefer not to be vindicated, frankly.
There's a government-wide distortion of science in this administration. I'm sure you've seen this from The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449):
On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making." In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions."
Since the release of the UCS report in February, the administration has continued to undermine the integrity of science in policy making seemingly unchecked. Many scientists have spoken out about their frustration with an administration that has undermined the quality of the science that informs policy making by suppressing, distorting, or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies and on scientific advisory panels.
You wrote that! I loved that story...well, in a terrified sort of way. It is one of the few pieces of fiction from Salon that has really stuck with me. Excellent work.
And I think hysteria is sometimes an honest response to the world.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 07:31 am (UTC)SInce when is science subjective?? Arrgh
Date: 2004-11-10 08:02 am (UTC)Isn't this the guy that said that women should pray to god when they have menstrual cramps?
Re: SInce when is science subjective?? Arrgh
Date: 2004-11-10 08:35 am (UTC)I'm praying, but to a different god for different reasons.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 08:16 am (UTC)When I published Miscarriage of Justice (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/24/life_sciences/), some of the mail Salon got in response was to the effect that it was liberal hysteria. I'd prefer not to be vindicated, frankly.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 08:37 am (UTC)Dark days indeed, when I have to warn students that .gov pages are no longer unbiased sources of health information.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-20 11:35 am (UTC)And I think hysteria is sometimes an honest response to the world.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-20 06:17 pm (UTC)Hysterically Yours...