Plan B obfuscation

The Washington Post has a story today about Plan B pills. Not surprisingly, in the year since the FDA approved their use without a prescription by women 18+, the use of these pills has spiked. Also not surprisingly, certain segments of our society, largely the same ones which would rather see embryos thrown in incinerators than used for potentially life-saving stem cell research, are up in arms.

"This is very concerning," said Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council, which is among several groups suing the FDA to reverse the decision. "We think this is putting women's health at risk."

Exactly how does the pill put a woman's health at risk? Yoest doesn't say. The FRC web site has a list of reasons they oppose the use of Plan B pills, but only one of them is a legitimate health concern:

Birth control pills, which are essentially a lower dose regimen of Plan B, require a prescription. They are not available OTC. They require an appointment with a licensed clinician to determine contraindications, obtain a prescription, and provide for medical oversight throughout the usage period.

"Birth control pills are available by prescription only for sound medical reasons: They can cause significant or life-threatening conditions such as blood clots and heart attacks. Birth control pills are contraindicated for women with diabetes, liver problems, heart disease, breast cancer, deep vein thrombosis, and for women who smoke and are over 35. A medical exam is necessary to ensure that none of these contraindications exists. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 1.85 million women of reproductive age (18-44) have diabetes; approximately 500,000 do not know that they have the disease."¹

The OTC status would increase access to Plan B to larger populations of women, including women who have not been screened for contraindications.

Unfortunately, this argument is flawed:

1. Yes, birth control pills can cause problems for some women with some health issues (typically blood clots, heart problems). This is made clear on the packaging. Which leads us to ...

2. Many over-the-counter medications with similar issues are sold. There is nothing unique or special about Plan B pills in this regard. Any over-the-counter medication can be misused.


What, in fact, are the general health risks for users of Plan B pills? According to Michigan State University, these include:

Some women experience temporary side effects after taking Plan B. Approximately 23.1 percent of women taking Plan B experience nausea (compared to 50.5 percent with the older Yuzpe regimen of high-dose estrogen-progestin pills), and 5.6 percent vomit (compared to 18.8 percent). Other side effects may include lower abdominal pain (17.6 percent), fatigue (16.9 percent), headache (16.8 percent), dizziness (11.2 percent), breast tenderness (10.7 percent), and menstrual changes, including heavier bleeding (13.8 percent) and lighter bleeding (12.5 percent).

Most women won't see any of those effects. For just about any woman using Plan B, suffering the above effects is well worth it to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. None of the above would be considered a "serious" health concern.

Most opponents of Plan B, such as the FRC, don't really give a rat's ass about any "health concerns" for woman. What they really are concerned about is abortion ... and they see Plan B usage as being (potentially) the equivalent of an abortion. They know that argument won't fly with the general populace, though, so they are forced to fall back on those old standbys -- obfuscation and fear-mongering.

Bad Christians! No donuts!

Yesterday, for the first time ever, a Hindi religious figure, Rajan Zed, presented the morning prayer in the Senate. Here is the text of his prayer:

Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Diety Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of Heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, peace, peace be unto all. Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. Amen.

It reads to me as if Zed bent over backwards to present a non-denominational prayer. Do you see anything there that threatens our American Way Of Life? Anything that threatens Christianity? Anything at all?

If not, you must not be working hard enough. A family of conservative Christian protesters felt the need to burst in and interrupt the affair shortly after it began, yelling and shouting until they were hauled off in handcuffs. I'm sure they think of themselves as martyrs rather than intolerant idiots they actually are.

“For all of these years we have honored the God of our Founding Fathers. It was not a group of Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims that came here. It was Christians,” said, Rev. Flip Benham, head of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, speaking to The Hill. As if that somehow gives Christians the right to act like asses toward representatives of other religions.

Lets be clear -- our founding fathers definitely came from cultures where Christianity was the dominant religion. However, most of them arrived here (or their ancestors did) because they were looking to escape from religious intolerance. They favored the idea of people being able to practice religion as each best saw fit (and assuming it wasn't directly harmful to others ... human sacrifice being right out for example).

There's a reason that, despite the predominantly Christian backgrounds of the signers, our Constitution doesn't mention "God" or "Creator". There's a reason we don't have an official state religion (despite what some people, including Rev. Benham, appear to believe).

Many of our founding fathers, to which such people so readily leap to apply "Christian" values, were not, in fact, good, practicing Christians. George Washington would leave church prior to receiving the sacrament. When the church pastor pointed out he was setting a poor example for the other attendees, Washington agreed ... and stopped attending church entirely.

With that attitude, George Washington could never be elected to any serious political office today, much less President. Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President, was unquestionably not a Christian. He would be lucky to be elected to a school board these days.

We are becoming a theocratic nation, and that's not a good thing. Most people who claim to be "religious conservatives" don't believe in many of the main tenets of science (evolution being the prime, but not sole, scientific matter they dispute). You could say the same about Islamic conservatives, and look where that stifling of research and questioning has left most Islamic cultures today -- what had been a thriving, intellectual culture, the forefront of human existence a millennium ago, is now broken and backward, scrabbling to come to terms with the modern world.

After barging into the room, the protesters interrupted Zan's prayer by shouting "this is an abomination". Ironically, that part they got right, if not in the sense they meant.

Obstinance or Criminality?

All the way back in April, three long months ago, the House judiciary committee requested (but did not issue subpoenas for) copies of emails from administration officials that had been sent from (or to) email accounts maintained by the Republican National Committee.

A couple days ago, administration counsel Emmet Flood informed the RNC and Congress it was the position of the White House those emails were covered under the President's recently invoked "Executive Privilege" order. The RNC followed shortly after by indicating it would abide with the administrations desires, and not make the emails available.

Now, subpoenas have not yet been issued but they have been approved, meaning they could be issued at anytime, including today. If so, it will be an additional log on the fire which is beginning to flame between Congress and the White House over how far Executive Privilege actually reaches.

I can't see any reasonable interpretation in which the RNC emails can be protected. One of two scenarios must apply:

1. The emails in question do not involve official administration business. If so, then they can't possibly be protected under executive privilege guidelines.

2. The emails in question do involve official administration business, in which case the administration is in clear violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. If this is the case, the investigation becomes a criminal investigation, and precedent has established Executive Privilege does not apply in the face of criminal investigations (here and here). As an extra-special added bonus, the Act explicitly states it applies to the office of the Vice President too, no matter what branch of government it resides in for any given day of the week.

So the White House is either admitting to criminal behavior on its part or willfully obstructing a legal request (and one it knows is legal) for documents. There is no third option. Personally, I'm going with the latter choice -- even this administration, with it's noted propensity for grandiose claims leavened with a large dollop of stupidity isn't going to freely admit it's been violating the law.

Issue the subpoenas and ask for an expedited decision. Lets get the farce over with.

Update: Speaking of Republican obstructionism, Anonymous Liberal has an excellent post about a different (but related) form of it. ALs post references another excellent post on the matter, this one by Hilzoy.

Update: Earlier today (July 13), subpoenas were issued to the RNC for the requested information.

Gaza Blockade

The NY Times had an article this morning describing the effects the blockade of Gaza is having on people there. United Nations building projects have been halted, factories are closing since they can no longer get needed materials, and so on. Unfortunately, as always seems the case, it will be the majority of civilians just doing their best to lead normal lives who will likely suffer most.

While I appreciate the difficulty of their lives, I find it hard to sympathize.

About 18 months ago the citizens of Palestine were given an opportunity to vote, a privilege they exercised. In doing so, they elected Hamas to power. Now, that election may have said a lot more about the disgust the citizenry had with the corruption rampant within the other main party, Fatah, than it did about their degree of alignment with Hamas ... but whatever the motivation, Hamas won.

All well and good -- elections held, and the will of the people was implemented. However, since among the founding tenets of Hamas is the commitment to the destruction of Israel, one can understand why Israel might be a bit concerned about the result. Since the election, Hamas has held to it's tenets and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, and last month implemented a military coup in the Strip, driving off or killing Fatah supporters. Israel responded by closing access to Gaza, leading to the current state of affairs where the economy of the area is turning from disastrous to non-existent.

The article mentioned the seeming lack of concern within Israel (and in the West Bank for that mater) over the situation, and the apparent lack of haste in re-opening commercial access to the Strip. However, given Hamas' intransigence it can't be a surprise Israel might not be in a real hurry to provide aid and assistance to an organization committed to Israeli destruction.

What the people of the Gaza Strip are learning is that, while elections are great to have, they don't occur in a vacuum. Elections have consequences. The citizens living in the Strip are learning about some of those consequences, and they are likely to continue living with them until either Hamas officially recognizes Israel or the people themselves institute a change in their government.

I may be too harsh on Palestinians for not understanding the consequences of their vote. After all, they were new to Democracy. We've had centuries of experience, but apparently couldn't figure out the same lesson in 2004.

Attorney Firing Catch-22

The President yesterday claimed executive privilege in suggesting former staffers Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor should not testify before Congress regarding the basis for deciding which attorneys were let go from the Attorney General's office last fall.

Bush places himself in an interesting position with the claim. While the privilege certainly exists, it's not an expressed right of the Executive branch, and thus may be denied under certain circumstances. Generally, court cases have found that the "closer" one is to the President, the stronger the privilege is. Cases have also determined that direct communication with the President merits stronger protection than communications with other staffers. Attempts to apply executive privilege claims to such communications have lost in court several times in the past -- something which this administration surely knows.

Sooo ... either Bush is simply throwing roadblocks in the way, knowing he has a losing case but intentionally trying to slow things down (and hey, maybe a court will rule his way against precedent), or he plans to assert the "stronger" form of executive privilege, in which case he will have to confess he was, to some degree, involved in the entire sordid affair to a degree he has so far denied.

In other words, he's either a liar or intentionally obstructing a legal investigation. If I had to guess it's the latter, done in an attempt to keep Alberto Gonzales from even more embarrassing disclosures. Neither is good, though.

Various blogs are reporting Taylor will appear before Congress tomorrow anyway, despite the President's assertion. As she is now a private citizen, it doesn't look like there is anyway for the administration to prevent her testimony, should she choose to give it. It remains to be seen if she does much more than assert her 5th Amendment rights on any of the more interesting questions.

One of these things ...

... is not like the other.

The Bush administration is attempting to divert attention from it's egregious commutation of Scooter's sentence by screaming as loudly as it can "hey, Clinton did it too", a claim which, of course, has at least two problems with it:

1. Even if the Clinton administration had done the exact same thing, two wrongs don't make a right as the saying go. One is tempted to ask Tony Snow, or whatever administration mouthpiece is available, "Well, if Clinton had jumped off a roof would President Bush do the same?".

2. Clinton did not actually "do it too".

Now, it's indisputable Clinton issued a number of pardons, including a large set as he was leaving office. There really isn't anything unusual about this, as prior out-going Presidents have done the same thing. The vast majority of these pardons are largely symbolic, being issued for deceased individuals. For those not yet deceased, the vast majority have served their time and the primary practical effect of the pardon is to restore the individuals' voting rights.

I am not aware of any Clinton pardon which rewarded a Clinton administration official for stonewalling an investigation into the Clinton administration. Not to put it too bluntly, that's almost a textbook description of "corruption", and it's what the Bush administration just engaged in.

Among Clinton's pardons, perhaps the case which most closely parallels Scooter's (closest I could find anyway) was that of Susan McDougal, who was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to answer questions concerning Whitewater in front of Kenneth Starr's grand jury panel, and who Clinton pardoned on his last day in office. However, prior to being pardoned McDougal had served her entire 18-month sentence. The pardon did not save her a single day of incarceration.

Scooter, needless to say, won't spend a single day inside a jail cell. He is not out a penny of the $250,000 fine he just paid, that will come from the same donors who contributed over $5 million to his defense fund. He won't suffer for being unable to practice law, as he will easily command $25,000 or more per appearance on the speaking circuit for some time, and after can find a safe home in some right-wing think tank, waiting out time until President Bush can pardon him on Bush's last day in office.

No, Scooter won't suffer. Scooter knows that, the President knows that and, most importantly, every other member (and former member) of the current administration also knows that.

Why would any current or former member of the administration hesitate to perjure themselves or, at least, refuse to answer questions, even in the face of contempt charges, after it has just been clearly demonstrated that, ultimately, they will suffer no serious consequences for their actions? The clear implication is "good soldiers" will "be taken care of", and far better than our actual soldiers are once they return home.

In providing amnesty for Scooter, El Jefe said he did it because the sentence was "excessive". as has been well documented, there was nothing at all excessive about Scooter's sentence. Even some conservatives admit the only thing extraordinary about the case was not the degree of punishment but, rather, who was involved.

Only the course of events will let us know if the message Bush sent to future witnesses will turn out to be the most "extraordinary" part of the entire affair.

Health (un)insurance

I saw today X4mr has joined the ranks of the uninsured, those 45 million Americans who are rolling the dice and hoping nothing goes seriously wrong with their health. He seems optimistic that situation will be remedied in the near future, and I hope it is. Unfortunately, most Americans who share his fate don't have the same prospects for regaining health insurance.

It's worth noting x4mr is most emphatically not some lower-class, poor, uneducated working schmo. Read his blog, look at his profile ... this is a bright, educated individual who was, until recently, gainfully employed, and I expect will be again shortly. Still, even he can't, for whatever reason, afford health insurance in the interim.

Michael Moore, famous or infamous depending on where you stand on the political spectrum, has a new documentary out examining the US health industry, and comparing it to the way health insurance works in other countries. It's not likely to surprise anyone that the US market-based, privatized approach comes off second-best. The US is the only major western industrial power without national health insurance, and "Sicko" will definitely leave viewers asking themselves exactly why that is.

The management consulting firm McKinsey put together a very detailed report (free registration may be required) laying out the various costs and inefficiencies in the US system which cause it to be, by a vast margin, the most expensive in the world while not providing better general health care by any measurable standard. Yes, it's true if you are a billionaire and money is no object, the best health care available anywhere in the world can be found here. If, however, you are among the majority who actually have to worry about money, that simply isn't the case, as, for example, infant mortality rates and average life expectancy and even average population height can attest.

McKinsey noted the US system results, among other extra expenses, in $98 billion additional administration costs when compared to an average system. Some of those costs are necessary, certainly, but some of them are extraneous in a national health-care system. Costs for marketing, for screening prospective participants, for finding reasons to deny claims, all become unnecessary if our priority switches from profit-based to public-welfare-based. As a comparison, McKinsey estimates it would "only" cost $77 billion to cover all uninsured Americans in a national system.

None of this is new, of course -- many of these same issues were relevant when we last had a national discussion about national health, more than a decade ago now with the failed Clinton bill. What may finally push this over the top so something is actually done could be a coalition of business lobbies standing up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Sad, but true ... it seems nothing gets done these days because it's actually the right thing to do, but rather because one army of lobbyists manages to kick the butt of another army of lobbyists.

Soaring health insurance costs are becoming an increasing burden on companies and corporations. Starbucks famously announced two years ago it was spending more on health insurance than on actual goods needed for it's stores. Things have only become worse in the interim, and other companies are feeling the pain. A more recent study found health insurance is the fastest growing cost for employers, and will overtake profits by next year. This can't be sustained.

This country has a historical faith in markets, and markets work well if your primary purpose is to maximize profits. However, sometimes profit-making should not be the primary raison d'etre for an institution's existence, and national health care is on that list. Our health insurance system is sick. It's time to turn the table, deny it coverage and let it die, while the rest of us work toward something better.