These are quotes from various (mostly) blog posts I found interesting – follow the links to read the whole posts.
Jacob Sullem on Meth Babies: The “crack baby” scare of the late 1980s and early ’90s, debunked by research showing that that the effects of prenatal cocaine exposure had been grossly exaggerated, is now being recycled as a “meth baby” scare. It features the same sort of careful reporting that made crack babies such a media hit, including third-hand rumors, nonsensical descriptions of “addicted” babies, and medical pronouncements by cops.
Majikthise on vanity license plates: A judge has ruled that the state of Utah can’t prevent Elizabeth Solomon from obtaining custom license plates that read GAYSROK and GAYRYTS, respectively.
Julian Sanchez on anti-trans discrimination at the Library of Congress: “Imagine an employer says that men can’t wear dresses,” suggests Post. “That seems like a pretty clear-cut case of gender discrimination: Men can’t do something women can.” But, says Post, few courts would count such a rule as gender descrimination, and judges tend to find ways to rationalize restrictions that reflect conventional notions of feminine or masculine behavior. Legal categories such as “discrimination on the basis of gender,” says Post, end up being treated not as objective standards but “vehicles for social meaning” that depend on judicial determination of which gender stereotypes may be enforced.
The Debate Link has some very interesting comments, inspired by Jonathan H. Adler’s libertarian reinterpretation of The Lorax: The Once-ler has no incentive to conserve the truffula trees for, as he notes to himself, if he doesn’t cut them down someone else will. He’s responding to the incentives created by a lack of property rights in the trees, and the inevitable tragedy results. Had the Once-ler owned the trees, his incentives would have been quite different…
Snapdragon’s Journal on the Federal crack down on legitimate pain medicine: America’s obsession with drugs has been costly – in money, lives, and liberty. I don’t think any rational person can dispute that. One relatively new cost is that the War on Drugs has also become the War on Pain Medication, cutting off chronic pain sufferers from the medication that they need. Sick people and their doctors are being treated like criminals.
Elizabeth Marquardt on Fertility Treatments and Women’s Deaths: Alina, coming from a similar socio economic background as Raluca, agreed to OHS as a way to harvest and sell her eggs because she needed money for her upcoming wedding. In January 2005, 20 of her eggs were harvested for which she received $250. Soon after the extraction, she developed OHSS and was hospitalized for 14 days. The clinic where the original procedure took place offered no assistance. Her attending doctor in the hospital made it clear that she would have died had she not sought immediate treatment
Peter Svensson (via Family Scholars) on Paid Maternity Leave: To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
Dean Baker on Pork Spending: While the budget wonk types who frequent MaxSpeak may know the unimportance of this sort of pork in the whole budget, less nerdy types are likely to believe that we are talking about real money. Most people are likely to think that $230 million is a big deal. They may even think that $3 million is a big deal. Of course they are right when talking about the finances of anyone not named “Bill Gates,” but in the context of the whole federal budget, this pork really doesn’t matter.
While I am flattered by the link (and I do hope that you enjoyed my post on The Lorax, it bears noting that the quote you excerpted comes not from my post, but from this post at the Commons Blog. While this is made semi-clear by your use of “quotes right-wing interpretation,” I still think you should give credit to the original source in addition to myself. I know that I’d be annoyed if credit was given to a secondary source quoting my own material, so I feel compelled to speak up for the original writers of the re-interpretated Lorax.
I’m sure it was just an error made for the sake of expediency, and I don’t fault you for it–linkfests are tough! I just feel like I should stick up for the original authors, as an integrity thing.
Once again, thanks for the link, and I hope you continue to read and enjoy The Debate Link!
Point well taken, David; I’ve edited the post to include a link to the original source.
how is it you can pooh-pooh the supposedly fabricated (or at least exaggerated) story about “meth babies” but then give full credence to an anecdotal scare story about egg donation?
why are women seeking infertility treatments bashed on this blog when seemingly every other female population is championed? this is not the first time i’ve seen either implications or outright offensive statements made about women who choose ART. i don’t understand that.
Beth, I commented extensively on the Elizabeth Marquardt piece over there. What a piece of alarmist, paternalistic bullshit. How can you take something seriously when, among other things, it states that “pro-lifers” alone are concerned about the health consequences of stem cell research and egg donation, just apparently not the health consequences of enforced child bearing.
It just goes to show that there are lots of people in the world ready to leap to the defense of young and naive women by denying them choices that they happen to disagree with. Yes, hypocrisy by any other name . . .
Err Beth, those are quotes that are posted from the blogitorials. You’re jumping the gun by assuming they represent the views of the person quoting. Amp simply stated he found the articles interesting.
With all due respect, I don’t think I or any other poster here has “bashed” women seeking infertility treatments.
While I’m not for banning the procedure, the question of if the women whose eggs are harvested are being treated well is important and shouldn’t be brushed aside.
Even if someone spending 14 days in the hospital is not a typical example – and clearly it’s not – it’s still appalling that any medical coverage she needed resulting from her “job” wasn’t covered by her “employers.” That’s exploitation, and it’s not necessary. You can still be in favor of helping infertile women, and at the same time believe there’s something wrong if some donors are being treated like shit.
Barbara, I’m not sure if you meant me or not when you said “hypocrisy by any other name.” In case it was a criticism of me, let me say this: I think all workers should be offered basic workplace protections, including health converage when they get injured on the job. I think all workers should be forbidden from selling themselves too cheaply – hence worker safety rules, hence minimum wage laws, hence overtime laws, etc etc. I don’t see any reason to make young women who sell their eggs the exception to these principles.
And I thought both your posts on the FS blog were really excellent.
Amp, no I meant Elizabeth, mostly, but there are those who, while ardently in favor of reproductive freedom, are suddenly seized with paternalistic impulses when it comes to things like egg donation. I don’t think that has included anything you’ve said but perhaps others here? Believe me, I am in favor of protecting the health and safety of all women undergoing medical procedures whether for research or otherwise.
Oh, and I did really mean to say, thanks for the nice comments. I always hit that send (or post) button too soon. And I wouldn’t comment at all if I didn’t think your blog is one of the best.