The Plan B, FRC, PP, and ME

Posted by Joshua White on 08.30.2006

Now that the FDA has approved the Plan B pill both sides are unhappy. And their unhappy for the wrong reasons.

Pre-column

Normally, every column (including my own) advertises the other columns on this site at the end of their respective column. As I am the innovator of fresh and new ideas around this site, I thought that I would shake things up. I would like all of you to go read Jason's column, Joe's column, and Ray's column. You should read these columns for two reasons. The first is that I will be talking about two of them in this column. You should read what I'm writing about first hand. Second, these three columns stand out this week as they all talk about how great my last column was. Seriously, it was a good one. Go read it if you haven't already.

I have to admit, though, that now that I have written such a work of amazingness (it's a word, look it up) I have this standard to live up to. And honestly, I don't like the pressure. So, I've decided that for the next three weeks I'm going to write really terrible columns. How bad you ask? My answers comes in an alliterative two word combination: Crow quality. Ok, obviously I'm joking. I wouldn't do that to my loyal readers. Further, I can't write as poorly (or as much) as Crow. Worry not followers! My column goodness will continue.

On to more a much more grave and serious topic: my newly won and coveted "Shut the Hell Up" award. Recently, in the above mentioned column, Mr. Ray continued our ongoing discussion of Joe Rivett's poll concerning WMDs in Iraq. However, instead of telling me how I'm wrong he said that we should "move on." My response: just like a raging liberal to not see the fight to the finish. Instead he cuts and runs. That really is "Un-American."

Continuing to pick on Ray Ray...he gives this week's "STHU" award to Sean Hannity for employing the strawman argument against Michael Brown. I have no problem with Ray criticizing Hannity. Good on him. If we are going to say thing someone's arguments are wrong, we should actually attack the argument. We shouldn't change what the person said and then discuss that version. It's the person's ideas that are important, not his opponent's warped version of it. Further, another form of fallacy is called ad hominem. This is where you claim that someone's arguments are wrong because the person making the argument is flawed in some way. If you want to claim that there is something wrong with Republicans (and not just individual ones, Republicans as a whole) then you cannot just give single examples of silly things that they have said. You have to attack their political, ethical, legal arguments. To do otherwise is just as flawed as using the strawman.

I also want to comment briefly on the study that focused on "career women." The first thing I want to say is that I think that it could be right about the conclusions it came to. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't issues, but I'll get to them in a second. But one thing an objector can't do is given one example that goes against the study and then claim that the study is wrong. This is something that was done all over tv news and almost done in Mark Radulich's column (though he does admit that there the study doesn't say "all"). All that the other of the study says is that the woman is more likely to be a certain way.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with the study is that it didn't mention the husbands of these women. I believe fully that the house of a career woman is dirtier than that of a stay at home mom. That is if the man is a "career man." With neither person staying at home, who is going to clean it? I think that a lot of this study would be negated, or the proportions reduced, if they looked at career woman who are married to stay at home men. And lastly, it makes total sense that "career women" would be less likely to have kids, cheat, and l have a more stressful marriage. Why? Well, if they have kids (and assuming they care about their children) then they are going to have to stay home for at least a little while. This could be damaging to their career path (especially if they are in a competitive field). Cheating? Well, they will be meeting more men and more successful men if they are out working hard for their money. And finally the stressful marriage? Sure. Now, both people are going to work and coming home to no dinner made. Someone has to make it. Someone has to clean the house, take care of the kids, etc. This causes stress. And saying all of this is not inherently anti-feminist or wrong.

Good God I've written a lot already. Ok, on to the ...

Column

As you all know (because you all just read Joe Rivett's riveting report) the plan B pill was recently approved by the FDA of mass consumption. Throw them condoms away!! I kid. As Jjjjoe said, both sides are pretty upset even though bost sides should be pleased at the results. The very right-winged Family Research Council is upset for a number of reasons. They think that this will lead rampant sluttiness amongst all teenagers (and people in general). The use of this drug is bothersome because it could help lead to the spread of STDs because it doesn't protect against them. And finally, there is some thought (not necessarily from the FRC, but definitely from some on the right) that the plan B pill is abortive. They think that the government shouldn't allow the pill as it is basically an "abortion pill."

As with most issues, the FRC is not correct. I don't believe that a chaste, Christian-going, virgin will start to sleep with all of the football team now that she has this "plan B." Ok, that is a little far-fetched. Seriously though, I don't think that this pill will really convince girls who aren't interested in sex to have it. Further, it isn't the drug's responsibility to prevent STDs. That is the job of a condom (or monogamy). However, if the condom fails, then this drug rides up on it's white steed and saves the day. Finally, and most simply, the plan B pill isn't an abortion in pill form. If you go to Plan B's site it says plainly and clearly that the pill "will not work if you are already pregnant."

I think that it is clear that the FRC is on the wrong side of the debate. Every complaint they can be answered and there is Joe's point that this would most likely reduce the number of actual abortions. If we have two options, one being the destruction of a living thing, or the stopping of it, shouldn't the FRC pick the latter?

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood, is annoying for other reasons. They are more than happy that the plan B pill will be made available to the public. (Hell, even if it was an abortion pill, I'd bet that they'd want it on the market.) But, as Jjjjoe said, "They complain that if you are under 18 you need a prescription." And this is true. They think that if you allow this pill to be taken by people under 18, then we could stop even more unwanted pregnancies, and by extension there would be less abortions.

Before I explain why I have a problem with this let me, a la Ray Ray, talk about language for a second. Planned Parenthood and some on the left want the plan B pill to be available to everyone sans prescription, even those under 18. Now, they say "people under 18", but another way of saying this is "children." PP (heh heh) wants to allow children to have access to this medicine. Here is my issue: I don't think that children should be allowed to buy drugs without their parents permission. What PP is asking for is just that. They want anyone, regardless of age, to be able to walk into their nearest CVS and obtain medicine without their parents knowing about it. This I find to be irresponsible.

It is the parents' responsibility to know what happens to the child. They need to know if the kid is sick so that they can take her to the doctor. For a child to take a drug without the parent knowing about it is just asking for problems. They could get sick, allergic, or have another sort of reaction. If they haven't told their parents that they are taking the plan B pill, then they most likely won't tell them that they had a reaction to it. This could cause even worse problems later on. This is exactly why we don't let children do a lot of things that adults can. They don't always understand the consequences. They aren't as responsible. And they shouldn't be allowed to handle medication without an adult's supervision. This is my real problem with what PP is asking for. They want to sanction subversive behavior by kids. That is not acceptable. (As a related side note, I'm not sure if they have an age limit in mind for who they would mind buying the plan B pill. Would it be ok for a 10 year old to buy it? 8 year old?)

I realize there are problems with my views. First, what is the difference between a 17 year 11 month old and an 18 year old? Aren't they practically as mature? I agree that they are almost as mature, but we need a line of demarcation. We could go down that slippery slope all the way from 18 to 8. It is just easier to say 18 as it is the traditional line between adult and child.

Second, what about children of incest or those of ridonkulously religious parents? They might not let them have get the pill. Well, as I argued here while the parents might listen to their kids, they are not obliged to. The parents are there to raise their children to the best of their ability, and if they don't want their child to take a certain medication for moral reasons, then that is their prerogative, and they must deal with the consequences. With the victims of incest, while they are a very unfortunate subset of those who are children, I think that it is best to make a overarching rule. Yes, there will be victims of incest, but the number is not enough to make it appropriate to allow them to have medicine without parental notification.

Practically speaking, I guess that none of this really matters anyway. If a girl is having sex and gets pregnant, then I'm sure that she can be resourceful enough to get someone who is actually over 18 to go and get the pill for her. Whether it be a friend's sister or her boyfriend, the pill, much like booze, will be available to underage ladies. This is a reason that some want the pill to be only available by prescription. But even this wouldn't stop those who are really determined to get the pill. This should not change the reason for the law.


Post-column

Finally, my followers have written to me! As I am a beneficent leader I will not only make you famous by publishing some of your writings in my column (which is read world-wide) and respond to you. Let's do this!

First, I must admit to a small error that I made in my last column. I called the garment that the Muslim woman was wearing a burqha. However, one of my apparenlty man Muslim followers pointed out that she, in fact, was actually wearing a chador. A burqha covers the entire body and face, while the chador leaves the face visible. Duly noted.

Rob, from the sports zone wrote in with a very interesting perspective. As a black guy, he says that he has felt people watching him before. So, he sympathizes with the Muslims in that respect. He continues:

I think a big problem is wardrobe. Like with black people, a brother in a suit and tie with a pleasant demeanor on his face and a "normal" hairstyle won't get nearly as much grief as a dude in a hoodie with some boots on and cornrows. Practicing Muslims don't have that option; a lot of them wear the same type of clothes and have similar hairstyles, so the "oh, he's
ok indicators" aren't there for us to let our guard down.

I think that Rob has a very good point here. I have seen lots of brown skinned people and while it isn't clear whether they are Hindu or Muslim, I'm not nearly that concerned. But you put a man in a chador and put a man next to her and all the sudden things change. Maybe i see them as more devout to both their religion and "cause." But even these sentiments give more proof to Rob's point.

Duke offered his insight as to why he thinks that I am not afraid of white people when I'm in government buildings.

You're not afraid of white people in federal buildings, because it was an isolated incident. You haven't heard any white guys giving speeches and issuing tapes saying their race is superior and they will take over the world and kill all non-believers (at least not since the 1930's).

I think that he may have a point. If I were to see men with shaved heads constantly threatening me then I think that I would be nervous if I were to see a white guy with a shaved head in a federal building. I think that Duke makes a very good assessment of my situation.

Ok, this column is way too long. But before I leave you (don't cry) I want to advertise one last column.

If you just can't get enough of me and you want more, more, more, then don't forget to read this week's Fact or Fiction. In it I defend Katherine Harris's ridiculous statement, John McCain's ability to be a moderate and the Republicans from stupid people who blame them for Katrina.

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.