Plan B, so what?
The majority of us are weary from hearing about the clashes of values and agendas between the pro-life and the pro-choice activists, and providing such extensive media coverage on Bush’s endorsement of the Plan B drug (a morning- after contraceptive drug, available over-the-counter to women over eighteen) is just adding more fuel to the already heated debate. This abortion related development shouldn’t be granted nearly the same significance and prominence as other pivotal issues such as terrorism, or gas prices; because while most people have an opinion on the abortion, it is only a minority that has an extremely rigidly fixed opinion and feels strongly affected by this development.
Also, although Bush has pledged to a specific political party, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is confined to their ways of thinking on every issue, but the outrage in the media seems to be implying we’d rather our leaders abandon intellectual honesty, in favor of politically bolstering themselves and acting upon what is most politically beneficial, and what will raise them in the polls. There is certainly nothing wrong with Bush compromising on a small scale with another set of values, especially since the two sets of values we’re dealing with are so greatly polarized, it is inevitable the government will have to find a way for both ends to be accommodated. Thus, Bush's endoresement of Plan B is receiving far more attention than it should. See this news story http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15390629.htm
3 comments:
Among the things I like about this posting is the unexpectedness of the argument -- agree or disagree with the conclusions, it's a nice piece of original thinking.
Before I begin, I’d like to say that as a guy, I don’t think I’m nearly as qualified to comment on contraception or abortion. These topics are extremely sticky and I risk a lot commenting on them. I also want to say that I believe 100% without a doubt that men should not be the ones legislating what should or should not be available in regards to contraception or abortion and that those decisions should be made by women: the people whose bodies are affected by these laws. That said, I still care a lot about these particular topics and being 50% of the gene pool, I think men are entitled to an opinion.
Although I may also be weary of this issue and how it is used in political debate, I certainly don’t think that this qualifies as “non-news” or “news that shouldn’t be.” This issue is EXTREMELY important, not only in regards to political opinion here at home, but also because of the impact it has on our foreign policy, as well as the choices that women in America have in regards to their healthcare and lifestyle.
Allow me to explain. Countries all over the world view the Bush administration’s policy on contraception as completely contrary to contributing to the war on AIDS. I believe it was about this time last year Ugandans were screaming that the United States’ policy is what caused the condom shortage in their country. By being against the use of condoms (or sex-ed in general), the President is basically legislating the spread of the disease and death of millions of people, simply because of his view on what is moral and according to his idea of what Christianity demands of him. The president believes solely that abstinence is the only method that should be taught in the war on AIDS.
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_condoms.htm
http://www.champnetwork.org/index.php?name=war-on-condoms
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3887177.stm (BBC)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0830-02.htm
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/bushs-war-on-the-condom/3348/
http://www.bushwatch.com/condoms.htm
True, in June 2004 he made a statement that sounded like condoms are acceptable…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politics/campaign/24bush.html?ei=5007&en=553d0292c480402e&ex=1403409600&adxnnl=1&partner=USERLAND&adxnnlx=1157418057-pxWk9/IejcrddJGtYAOZfg
…but he wasn’t exactly supportive.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040712/ireland
Thus, other countries HATE us and think we don’t care about dying people around the world because we don’t support the most obvious and effective method (besides for abstinence) against the prevention of the spread of AIDS. This all ties into Bush’s policy on contraception: its NOT just about the morning after pill.
As far as here at home, before the Plan B or Morning After pill became available over the counter, women had to go to emergency rooms to get it, wait hours to receive the pill, and often pay an exorbitant amount of money for a hospital visit. Not only did women have to go through all this, many were probably unaware that they had the choice of a “morning after” pill.
In a 2002 study on knowledge about sex, abortion, and contraception, “one fourth to one half [of the women involved] did not have enough knowledge to use emergency contraceptive pills effectively.” And on National Public Radio (NPR) it was stated that “few women know about the so-called morning-after pill” and “surveys show four in five American women aren't aware of it.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB0-4BRK66V-N&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_alid=443082047&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6696&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_versionfiltered=1&_urlVersionfiltered=0&_userid=10&md5=3d44fc6abdc77703e66d73d37d524d90
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1140099
It’s important that the knowledge and information that this choice is available is in the newspapers, where people can find out about it. Imagine all those unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) from rape victims that could be stopped, if they only knew to take a pill the morning after? I can’t imagine any woman who would rather go through an abortion, than take a simple, over the counter, Plan B pill.
THIS IS TOTALLY NEWS!!!!!!!
“Chefshalom”, in response to your comment, I would like to point out the following, that my intention was not to dismiss the story as insignificant and render it unnewsworthy, (if such a term even exists) but to disagree with the way the story was being presented.
The mainstream media, instead of focusing on the essence of the decision, and making sure women all over the country are aware of this development, since and I quote from what you yourself wrote
"National Public Radio (NPR) it was stated that “few women know about the so-called morning-after pill” and “surveys show four in five American women aren't aware of it.” This indicates just how important it is for the media to publicize the availability of the drug. For once, the media would be doing something worthy and commendable, but instead, since the media likes to report the juicy facts and overblow things way out of their proportion, it merely accentuated the outrage in his party, overanalyzing and speculating the ramifications of his decision to support it, and filling our newspapers as usual with nothing but hyped up fluff.
Post a Comment