Two interesting news briefs from ‘Feminist Majority’ that I just couldn’t have been passed up. The FDA has promised to make a decision on Plan B by September 1 of this year. Gee, will the FDA continue to play politics with women’s health and reproductive rights, all to appease Bush and the anti-choice/anti-contraception ideologues? (Probably.)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt has promised that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will make its decision about the over-the-counter status of emergency contraception by September 1, 2005. Leavitt’s announcement comes after a series of delays on Barr Laboratories’ application for the sale of Plan B, a brand of emergency contraception, over-the-counter. At the expense of women’s health, the FDA has continued to put off making a decision despite two expert FDA advisory panels that voted 23 to 4 to recommend its availability in December 2003.
[…]”After more than two years of waiting, American consumers and American women will finally get an answer,” said Senators Murray and Clinton in a joint statement. “While we continue to have concerns about the lack of leadership and independent decision-making that Dr. Crawford and the FDA have shown in this case, we have been clear all along that our hold on this nomination is about one thing only: the FDA’s failure to provide an answer on Plan B.”
It’s all about keeping us guessing and begging for an answer–begging for women’s reproductive rights and health to be ensured and protected. It’s some sick game to them. Toying with women’s health and reproductive rights, and treating them as “inconveniences” or “unimportant special interest issues,” clearly demonstrates what little regard and esteem our government holds women’s civil rights and liberties–as reproductive rights (*autonomy*) and health are apart of those things. Now, it’s time to ask Dubya Bush about his personal stance on contraception…
Nineteen members of Congress have sent a leader to President Bush asking him to clarify his position on contraception. Led by Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), they seek an answer to a question White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer on May 26. At the press briefing, when asked about the President’s position on birth control, McClellan replied “… I think the President’s views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life … and if you want to ask those questions, that’s fine. I’m just not going to dignify them with a response.”
Has McClellan ever dignified a journalist’s question with straight forward answer?
“The President demonstrates yet again how out of touch he is with mainstream America. Contraception is one of the keys to ensuring that abortion is a choice that is rare. There should be absolutely no ambiguity,” said Wasserman Schultz.[…] “If the President cannot respond to a simple question on whether he is opposed to birth control, then women’s access to birth control is at risk.” In the letter, the members of Congress urge the President to take a clear stand on contraception, saying “responsible men and women need the President to stand up in support of their rights to contraception, not to shy away from the issue.”
A noble ‘dare‘ on the President, however, Bush and his Press Secretary McClellan are notoriously skillful in the art of never directly answering a question. Or giving ambiguous and extremely vague answers that can be interpreted as a simple, “ha-ha, I’m side stepping the question all together and playing word games that you’ll never figure out.”
[…] “Doctrines of privacy and equality for women are simply not separable: Eroding one imperils the other,” writes Ellen Chesler in Ms. magazine’s Urgent Report on the Looming Fight Over the Supreme Court. […]
Knowing exactly where Bush stands on the issue of contraception will probably give us more insight as to the fates of Roe and Griswold, as his judicial nominee will more than likely reflect his own personal views on women’s health and women’s reproductive rights.
*Update*–thanks to an email I received, here’s some info on how emergency contraception really works.
He and Laura have been married how long and only have 1 pregnancy resulting in birth to show for it? Granted, they had Jenna and not-Jenna from this one pregnancy but are they practicing abstinence or using contraception? How pro-family are they if they only have two kids to show for their marriage?
Ah yes, this elusive “culture of life” I’m always hearing about. They want to refuse a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, but once that baby is born they will do nothing to support her to raise it. The simplest things like health care could bankrupt a person, but this is a culture of life right?
They are willing to dole out the death penalty like its candy on Halloween but if you are a vegetable they won’t give you the dignity of an assisted death.
After the unwanted pregnancy that the mother couldn’t afford grows up and joins the army because it’s the only way they can afford health care or to go to college, we send them to an unjust war to die.
And now the final straw, they want to take away our right to protect ourselves from unwanted pregnancy so that we don’t have to try and get an abortion.
What’s next? Are they going to start practicing ritual clitorectomy to ensure that women will not engage in sexual activity unless strictly for procreation?
The slippery slope is happening. They want to overturn Roe, then, rather than leaving the abortion issue up to states, they’ll want to outlaw at the federal level, and then comes restrictions on contraception. The Bushes surely used it. Maybe for starters you’ll have to show a marriage license to buy condoms or get a prescription filled. It’ll just snowball from there. And what happens to women who are on the pill, not for contraception, but for hormone reasons?
I think most conservative Christians actually aren’t against birth control, so yippee, they’re on our side. How scary.
As for Bush himself, I can’t stand him, but I think he’s actually not as far-right as his base. Notice we haven’t heard anything about a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. He stated he was against it a long time ago, then caved to the right and said he’d be for it if it was the only way to “protect” marriage, but he hasn’t pushed it. Laura is pro-choice. I’m not too worried about GW’s views. I’m worried about who the next guy might be.