or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Domestic policies in the USA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Domestic policies in the USA

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
Something I have felt very strongly about this war, is that it is being used as a distraction so Bush can press his very religiously biased domestic agenda.

I just received another example of this in my e-mail.
I wonder just how far he will erode the seperation of church and state...

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
> Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice.
> In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.
> Hagar's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's health.
> Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds rather than scientific experimerit would halt the development of mifepristone as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine >fibroid tumors,psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's syndrome. Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy. For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening condition.
> We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs will color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of any FDA committee.
> Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by anti-abortion politics. Members of this and all other important FDA panels should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women and the American people as a whole deserve no less.
post #2 of 7
Wow, that's frightening! Granted, every person brings their own beliefs and values to their jobs, nad he has every right to be "pro-life" and not give birth control pills to unmarried women IN HIS OWN PRACTICE, but it seems like some of this guy's ideas are just medically wrong. There is so much more to reproductive health and medicine than birth control pills.
post #3 of 7
"Militant" anything should not have control of what they are "militant" about. I don't feel that he would represent to opinion of all Americans in his position.

In Canada, I find it offensive that abortion is covered under our health plan, but fertility treatments are not! Both or neither should be the case.
post #4 of 7
That is disturbing. I assume this man has some kind of scientific credentials as well as religious? They need to do MORE to cover and protect women's health, not less. I never did understand why some insurance companies, many in fact, won't cover birth control but will cover pregnancy and abortions. Fiscally, isn't birth control much cheaper in the long run than a pregnancy and child??

Being in the minority of non-Christians, it does bother me a lot to have theology being such a strong player in policy. Personally I think the benefits of stem cell research using the resources we already have (and are literally throwing away), far outweigh the moral objections based on the right-wing Christian point of view.
post #5 of 7
Both of those men are jerk's!
post #6 of 7
I'm a conservative but I don't believe that government should have anything to say, about MY health-care choices. Contraception and abortion should not be political footballs.

Personally, an abortion was never an option that I considered but there are times that it may be necessary. I do not want to see desperate women being forced back into back alleys with coat hangers.

Government should be involved only to the extent of seeing that doctors and clinics are properly certified and safe.
post #7 of 7
That unfortunately doesn't surprise me, seeing as Ashcroft is the Attorney General. I think one of the U.S.'s biggest strengths is the separation of church and state, and I hate to see the state undermine that principle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Domestic policies in the USA