FDA's Reproductive Health and the religious right

I'd do a little write-up, but I'm too tired.....

littlek- I found those articles extremely disturbing. I do not believe that religious concerns of a particular faith should even enter in matters of scientific inquiry.

<This is what I really wanted to say about the article, but it would be unseemly for a Moderator to come out with a string of blue language!>
>&^(#@*&%$*+^%$*^$

I think that you get my drift!

Pretty much what I thought on reading up about it. And, I agree. If his belief system is part of his practice - good for him, but he doesn't belong in that department. But, yet, there he is.

[insert VERY blue language here.]

Apparently Mr. Bush is attempting to impose HIS religious views on the citizenry of the US by appointing people who will attempt to subordinate science to conform to a narrow view of Christianity.

The funny this is, I remember the very vocal concerns that people had when Kennedy was running for President. Many people thought that his decisions would reflect the views of the Vatican. They didn't. And now this.........................

At least that guy is no longer Chair of the committee.....but still. Here's a form letter you can send in to Bush, FDA Commissioner McClellan, and FDA Women's Health Director Susan Wood to keep Hager from being part of the discussion on Mifepristone useage.

Mifepristone is a drug that is known for being "the safest and earliest method of abortion.... [it also shows] promising indications as a possible treatment for fibroid tumors, ovarian cancer, some types of breast cancer, psychotic major depression, and other serious diseases."


Cookie cutter letter to Bush

"Beyond Baby Blues: Is Post Partum Depression a Diagnosis or an Excuse" Another astounding title by Hager. "Hager makes no mention of the biological causes of this disease. Instead, he names guilt and post partum unattractiveness as causes, and recommends paternal involvement and reading of Scriptures as the treatments."

littlek- Stop! What you are saying is making me want to puke. This is supposed to be a scientist?????

Dr. Joseph Stanford of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City advocates
"natural family planning", e.g. the rhythm method, as the only acceptable
form of contraception because ".medicine is permeated with attitudes
toward sexuality and fertility that are incompatible with Christian values
of the sanctity of life, marriage, and procreation, attitudes that both
reflect and perpetuate the recreational approach to sexuality found in
our secular culture," reported HealthScoutNews.


Dr. Vivian Lewis of the University of Rochester Medical Center, advocates greater restrictions on mifepristone, despite its proven safety and enormous potential for treatment of several serious illnesses including some types of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and possibly prostate cancer; uterine fibroids; endometriosis; Cushing's syndrome and depression. One million women worldwide and 100,000 women in the US have safely and effectively used the FDA-sanctioned regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion.

Above from random site found through google

Sorry, Pho.

It's just another piece of Bush's agenda. He if he could would turn this nation into a theocracy. I have always been afraid that the Moral majority, religious right or whatever they choose to call themselves was one of the greatest dangers our secular democracy has to face. There is nothing worse than a religious zealot.

This got me thinking:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3817&highlight=

Phoenix:

I agree.

I've already seen it.... hopefully that'll be a good discussion thread.

au:

Religious zealot...you mean like the terrorists on 9/11/01?

There were 7 faiths on the shuttle columbia, when it went down.

Did God hear only one of the individuals or did God hear the prayers of all.
I suspect the crew all prayed, each one in his/her own way and that God did hear each soul.

Why is Hager considered a religious zealot, based on this quote?
He is a christian, But that isn't the real problem. He hasn't kept with with research, literature or clinical medicine.

He shouldn't be appointed, because he isn't qualified. NOT because he is a Christian.

And naming pro-choce panelists wouldn't be "injecting politics"? Let's be honest here, it's all politics. Is it really that frightening to you to have both points of view represented when making decisions on such an important issue, or do you fear that your point of view won't win out in a rigorous debate?

And you might consider leaving off the attacks on religion. It's a red herring. It doesn't matter if someone is opposed to abortion for religious reasons. It's his or her opposition to abortion with which you should deal, not his or her religion.

Bush's New Pro-life Holiday

They're kidding right?

Why so much Bush bashing?