Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
I'm so pissed. Bush is already trying to step on women's rights.

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 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 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. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. 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.

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives for 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 this committee.

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
Hey, Anna, could you post where you got this from? A friend of mine would like to see the source.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
Absolutely, I should have anyway.

I got it as an email forward with a petition.

Here is the full text:


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 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 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. His views of reproductive health
care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is
a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to
prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. 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.
We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his
assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives
for 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 this committee.
Critical drug public policy and research must not be held hostage by antiabortion
politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the
basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American
women deserve no less. There is something you can do. Below is a statement to
be sent to the White House, opposing the placement of Hager.

1) Please copy and paste (DON'T forward) the entire email into a fresh
email; then sign your name below. After you sign, SEND THIS TO EVERY
PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
(2) Every 10th person who signs the list (i.e., #10, #20, #30, etc.) -
please forward the entire e-mail to president@whitehouse.gov

_______________________________________
We oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA Reproductive
Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is
unacceptable in a policy-making position. Using the FDA to promote a
political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens women's
health. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve
no less.

1. Susan Tannenbaum ( Owings Mills,Maryland)
2. Susan Levine (Silver Spring,MD)
3. Audrey Funk (Henderson,NV)
4. Susan Lowe Shlisky (Las Vegas,NV)
5. Michelle Straub-Wilensky (Los Angeles,CA)
6. Patricia Phelan(San Francisco,CA)
7. Victoria Einhorn(san anselmo, ca)
8. Brad Einhorn(Brooklyn,NY)
9. Bethany M acMillan (Brooklyn,NY)
10. Amy Russell (Louisville,Kentucky)
11. Beverly D. Moore Louisville,Kentucky)
12. Connie O. Byrne (Kannapolis,North Carolina)
13. Janet C. Haas (Charlotte,North Carolina)
14. Heather Vrana (Charlotte,NC)
15. Clare M. Evans (Newport,VA)
16.Kathy Chadwick 17.Jim Chadwick
18.Claire Grimm Chadwick
19.Lindsay Addison (Naples,FL)
20. Peggy Addison (Naples,FL)
21. David Addison (Naples,FL)
22. Howard Schumsky (Orlando,FL)
23. Kristie Born (Orlando,FL)
24. Paul Boyd (Atlantic Highlands,NJ)
25. Lois Jensen (NYC, NY)
26. Catherine Rubenstein (Belvedere, CA)
27. Anne Rubenstein (Belvedere, CA)
28. Dirk Rubenstein (Belvedere, CA)
29. Barbara K. Westover (Oakland, CA)
30. Sharon Bjornson (Oakland, CA)
31. Rabbi Sue Levi Elwell (Philadelphia, PA)
32. Hana Elwell (Brooklyn,NY)
33. Jen Song (Brooklyn, NY)
34. Janet Lo (New York,NY)
35. Emily Horowitz (New York, NY)
36. Daniel Horowitz (New York, NY)
37.Josh Hyman (New York, NY)
38. Mona Goldsmith (Plainview, NY)
39.Kate Striano (Newtown, CT)
40. Elissa Gellis ( Newtown, CT)
41. Diane Thompson (Sandy Hook, CT)
42. LInda Parsloe (Sandy Hook, CT)
43. Judy Juracek (Darien, CT)
44. Deborah Meisels (City Island, NY)
45. P. Briggs Saroch (Greenfield, MA)
46. Diane Fisher-Katz (Northampton, MA)
47. Kirsten Cirincione (Florence, MA)
48. Jane Lynch (Florence, MA)
49. Kathleen Kennedy (Santa Barbara, CA)
50. Leslie Palmer (San Antonio, TX)
51. Julie Toland, Middletown, RI
52. Josie Merck,( Cos Cob, CT)
53. Elizabeth O'Neill (Boston, MA)
54. Joan O'Neill (Traverse City, MI)
55. Barbara Becker (Concord, CA)
56. Ken Bruckmeier (Oakland,CA)
57.Margret >Elson (Oakland, CA)
58, Marsha Sherman (Portland, OR)
59. Marinell Eva (Santa Rosa, CA)
60. Sharon Oman (Petaluma, CA)
61. Adrienne Davis (Santa Rosa, CA)
62. Barbara Carlson (Santa Rosa, CA)
63. Karen Grace-Kaho (Sacramento , CA)
64. Mary Beth Love (San Francisco, CA)
65. Ruth Finnerty (Oakland, CA)
66. Rosalie Holtz
67. Kay Corlett (Albany, CA)
68. Connie Barnes (Oakley, CA)
69. Donna Ventura (Brentwood, CA)
70. Nancy Herman (Lafayette,CA) 71.
Shirley Chang (Berkeley, CA)
72. Nola Chavez (El Cerrito, CA)
73. Elspeth Wells (Clayton, CA)
74. Phyllis Berger (Los Angeles, CA)
75. Joan Barnett (Boston, Ma.)
76. Karen Danaher(Los Angeles,CA)
77. Susan Rice (New York, NY)
78. Alan Wagner New York, NY)
79. Jane Altman (New York, NY)
80. Sheila Friedman (Yardley, PA)
81. Susan Cooper (Brookfield, CT)
82. Elissa Fisher (Pleasantville, NY)
83. Angela Usobiaga (Pleasantville, NY)
84. Katherine Procopio Goodman (Katonah, NY)
85. Jessica White (Dobbs Ferry, NY)
86. Danielle Bottari (New York,NY)
87. Jennifer Getschmann (New York, NY)
88. Sung Pak (New York, NY)
89. Sharon Pak (New York, NY)
90. Pamela Gold(Jersey City, NJ)
91. Mindy Drossner (Lafayette Hill, PA)
92. Stephanie Choder (Gladwyne, PA)
93. Robin Stern (Lafayette Hill, PA)
94. Emily Newman (Syracuse, NY)
95. Mark Stern (syracuse, NY)
96. Robin Fink (Philadelphia, PA 19102)
97. Greg Rosen (New York, NY)
98, Durelle Schacter (San MAteo, CA)
99,rachel stewart (san anselmo ca)
100 Joyce Goldstein ( San Francisco)
101 Kate Slate (New York city)
102 Mardee Regan (Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY)
103 Brad Mehldau (Newburgh, NY)
104 Augusta Quirk (Summerland,CA)
105. Carolyn Furlong (St. Babs,CA)
106. Alexandra Morath (Santa Barbara, CA)
107. Talia Camarena (New York, NY)
108. Stuart Baldwin (New York, NY)
109. Julie Clarke (Chapel Hill, NC)
110. Vivian Chen (Chapel Hill, NC)
111.Sheryl Trager (New York,NY)
112. Debra Carbonaro (New York, NY)
113. Bowie Maksrivorawa (New York,NY)
114. Dawn Wetzel (Memphis, TN)
115. Posey Hedges (Memphis, TN)
116. Jim Spake (Memphis, TN)
117. Charlie Wood (Memphis, TN)
118. Kathy Kosins ( Birmingham, Michigan)
119. Dan Pliskow (Royal Oak, Mi.)
120.Susan B. Anderson (Pacifica, CA)
121. Laurence D. Anderson Pacifica,CA)
122. Irene Spang (San Francisco, CA)
123. John L. Spang (San Francisco, CA)
124. Katherine Albrecht (San Francisco, CA)
125. Suzane Kavert (San Francisco, CA)
126. Chris Kavert (San Francisco, CA)
127. Holly Milne (San Francisco, CA)
128. Emma Tresemer (San Francisco, CA)
129. Jennifer Black (Boulder, CO)
130. Jesse Ritch (Boulder, CO)
131. Lily Fessenden (Searsmont, ME)
132. Terrence Keeney (East Montpelier, VT)
133. Penelope Stout-Hammar (Milton, VT)
134. Susannah Hammar (Medford, MA)
135. Leslie Stephenson (Riverdale, NY)
136. Marisa Mann (Woodmere, NY)
137. Stacey Ganina (Riverdale, NY)
138. Alex Kehl (New York, NY)
139. Elissa Leonard (Freeport, ME)
140. Maria Dewees (Waltham, MA)
141. Bennet Leon (Sudbury, MA)
142. Maria Jenness (Newport, VT)
145. Allie Leib (Ridgefield, CT)
146. Harriet Leib (Somers, NY)
147.Myra Leib (Dobbs Ferry,NY)
148. Elaine Paroff (Nyack, NY
149. Beverly Bierman (New City, NY)
150. Judy Houser (Satellite Beach, Fl)
151. Lee Kananack (Indialantic, Florida)
152. Beverley Shenkman (New York City)
153. Barbara McEntyre (Corte Madera, CA)
154. Ellen Datlow (New York City)
155. Alice K. Turner (New York City)
156. Teresa Grosch (Glencoe, IL)
157. Mary Grosch (DeKalb, IL)
158. Leanne VandeCreek (Batavia, IL)
159. Susan Knapp (Baltimore, MD)
160. Jill Sarote (Cortlandt Manor, NY)
161. Jen Bernhard (Milford, CT)
162. Paul Lawyer (Colonie NY)
163. Eliza Waxman (Colonie NY)
164. Colleen Keough (Chicago, IL
165.Linda Weinbaum ( Salem, Massachusetts )
166. Linda Blackwell (Fairfield, Ct)
167. Ariane Mermod (Westport, CT)
168. Jennifer Piper (Greenfield, NH)
169. Patrick Piper (Greenfield, NH)
170. Heather Beach (Northborough, MA)
171. Anna Gregoline (Chicago, IL)


Sorry that was really long.

Erik Bates | November 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
Ok, great.

I'll go look for a better source.

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
I found it on snopes

(link)

But, I can't find anything on a legitimate source.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
Hmmm...seems this happened a long time ago? I'm not finding real info for a current date. Sorry!

It still sucks. I'll keep looking.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
He is still on the panel, at the very least.

(link)

Sorry about that! Last time I'll trust a forward.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
I think this is where it came from:

(link)

Jackie Mason | November 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
This, next to Iraq and our next war, is what frightens me the most out of the next four years.

I can't help but have visions of women being strapped to hospital beds and held against their will until they give birth because they want abortions. If certain laws are passed, that could actually happen.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
Oh, and then there's this: another pharmist refusing to give out birth control pills. Uh, how about trying another profession?

(link)

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
I have 1 word to say: WTF?

John E Gunter | November 9, 2004
I agree that a pharmacist should be able to refuse to fill a prescription that they have a reason not to. What I don't agree with is them refusing to give the prescription to another pharmacist. If you MAKE a pharmacist fill everyone's prescription, you are infringing on their rights as a person.

But, if they refuse to let anyone fill your prescription, then they are infringing on someone elses rights. So as long as you can get your prescription filled, there should be no problem with someone not wanting to fill it as long as you can get it filled by a qualified professional.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
I'm sorry, John, but I completely disagree. If they cannot dispense every medication due to their religious beliefs, they should not be pharmacists. It's the bottom line. If a doctor cannot perform any medical procedure due to his beliefs, he shouldn't be a doctor.

If a religious Jew is trying to get a job, and the job requires Saturday hours, he will not take the job. It's the bottom line.

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
There might be a problem, though, John, in small towns where there IS no other drugstore. What then?

Lori Lancaster | November 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
The point is Lori, that you shouldn't have to. Everyone is concerned about this person's religious beliefs. What if these are for a woman who needs to control her cycle instead of being used as contraception? There are so many variables to consider.

John E Gunter | November 9, 2004
So what you are saying ScottieHo, is that a pharmacist, who has been dispensing medication for x number of years sees a new medication that comes on the market that they feel is not something they can with a clear conscious, dispense to a customer, they need to stop being a pharmacist?

Same goes for a doctor!

As far as the problem you bring up Anna, yes, that would be a difficult situation, but usually, there is more than 1 pharmacist in every drugstore due to the volume of work. Even if that pharmacist is a part time one. Baring that, there is always mail order for the medication or driving to another town to get it.

Responding to your recent post ScottieHo,

[quote]Everyone is concerned about this person's religious beliefs.[/quote]

I never brought religion into my comments, just stated that the person had a reason for not dispensing the medication.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
If a drug is deemed harmful, the FDA will see that it is not legally accesible. That is who decides. If they cannot do their job with a clear conscious, they shouldn't be doing it..

I hate the fact that every fucking thing in this country is coming down to religious. The law is above religion in this country, and it should stay that way.

I know what you're saying John, I think you are playing devil's advocate. If say codeine was prescribed and the pharmacist knew the patient was a recovering cocaine addict, I'd agree with you. But in terms of birth control, what other reasons are there than religion?

John E Gunter | November 9, 2004
I knew better than to get into this discussion as you would not see my point of view on it. I never mentioned religion in my arguments, but you still seem to not get that. There are many reasons why someone would not want to dispense medication beyond religion. Yes, legality is one other reason, but the FDA is not always right. But, if you wish to believe that the government is always going to do the best for you out of their vast wisdom, then so be it.

By blindly following the powers that be, you end up having major problems, which is what we do not do in this country. That's why we have an election every 4 years for who will be the leader of our country. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but I'd take this 'broken' system everyday over Cuba, China or Russia, even with the collapse.

Do things get screwed up? Sure they do, but if a pharmacist will not dispense a medication that I feel I must have, I'll go find one who will, and not blindly cry and complain about how unfair it is!

John

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
I understand your point, John. There are some valid reasons why a pharmacist would not dispense medication, and now that I've thought logically about it, you are right. I just get annoyed by the extremists who go on a moral ground. I've been hurt too many times in my life by anti-semitism that I see everything with this whole moral ground turning into a heated religious majority decision. I apologize for biting your head off.

Amy Austin | November 9, 2004
I think you make a good point, too, John -- but I'd like to ask it you think that it should also work the other way around. That is, if a doctor/pharmacist team wants to prescribe ("under the counter" or "on the sly", however) something that is legal and known to be unharmful in other countries, but *illegal* here -- because of a lack of FDA approval (and we all know that the FDA is indeed fallible and doesn't know *everything*) -- should they also be able to do that? The best (and most appropriate to this thread) example for this question would be the RU-487 pill from France. But, here again... religion is the underlying issue, and this is how I can see where Ho is coming from, too. Not trying to be an instigator here, just wondering...

Todd Brotsch | November 9, 2004
This being such a long posting already....

Scott you're wrong about the doctor thing. If a doctor is needed to do a job and the doctor happens to be Jewish, still needs to do the work. Being a doctor takes presidence over religous background.

As to a doctor prescribing drugs, it is the doctor's choice not that of the patient. Regardless of the FDA's approval of a drug a doctor is the one prescribing it. If the doctor feels a drug is not right for a patient then it will not be prescribed. It is illegal for a patient to go from doctor to doctor looking for a a specific pill, called doctor shopping....

John E Gunter | November 9, 2004
But we were talking pharmacist here, not doctors.

While I'd like to agree with your point Amy and how I can see that the FDA could/probably is wrong about such things, it would be illegal for the doctor to prescribe it, if they were to get caught, they get in trouble.

Thanks for stopping and taking a moment to think it through ScottieHo. Yes, religion has a tendancy to cause problems with extremists on both sides. But, you can still be an extremist on not be religious.

The one pharmacist I know, who I trust, could very well have other reasons for not dispensing a medication other than a religious reason. While doctors prescribe the medications, they sometimes have no idea what the different chemical reactions that those medications will cause on a patient.

Doctors, although need to understand chemistry, don't seem to get be quite skilled enough for my taste to know what the cocktail of medications they prescribe to us will do to us always. The pharmacist, always seems to understand what these different chemicals will do as far as interactions are concerned.

Doesn't a pharmacist need to know more about chemistry than a doctor? As such, wouldn't a pharmacist be able to better understand what a particular combination of those chemicals have on a body? So the doctor, by mistake, could prescribe a group of medications that could cause some kind of reaction to the patient, that the parmacist would not want to dispense.

So, are you going to blindly accept everything the doctor prescribes for you, or are you going to listen to your pharmacist as well?

Granted, as far as the above article states, that Anna is relating to, that pharmacist is not dispensing medication due to apparent religious objection, but I would much rather have a pharmacist who questions the dispensing of a medication, than one who blindly says, "Yep, the doctor said you need to take this medication, so I'll just give it to you."

"What you say, the doctor also prescribed that one? Well, yeah there might be a reaction, but the law says I have to give you this medication, so you gotta take it!"

I know I'm being extreme with those last statements, but as has been stated before, the government can be extreme with what they do, so if we allow them to force pharmacists to blindly dispense whatever medication the doctors prescribe for us, I'm not sure I'll be going to any pharmacists anymore.

John

Amy Austin | November 9, 2004
A fine argument, John... thanks!

BIG chuckles to Erik, BTW: "It's not my bag, baby!"

Lori Lancaster | November 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | November 9, 2004
The reason I brought religion into this discussion, is because the nature of the article that Anna posted.

Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.


"did not believe in birth control" leads me to assume it is because of religious beliefts. And nice response Lori. Very astute!

Anna Gregoline | November 9, 2004
Whoa, I was gone awhile!

Lori, the only problem with that argument I see is that not everyone is using birth control for birth control! It can be used to help control or eliminate a number of medical problems, and doesn't have to be involved with a person's desire to have sex. I was on birth control for over a year and I was NOT having sex during that time - I was on it to control cysts that would form on my ovaries. It really helped, and if I had to go without it, I would have been in a lot of pain. There are more serious conditions too that it can help with. So it's not necessarily a morality thing - it's someone (the pharmicist) making a judgement on another person when they don't even know the story.

If you're talking about RU-486, Amy, it's legal in the U.S., I believe in all areas. (link) Good luck getting it though, I hear it's rather tough.

"As far as the problem you bring up Anna, yes, that would be a difficult situation, but usually, there is more than 1 pharmacist in every drugstore due to the volume of work. Even if that pharmacist is a part time one. Baring that, there is always mail order for the medication or driving to another town to get it. "

With many of these stories though, the company that manages the pharmacy has backed up the pharmacist who refused - meaning that no other pharmacist in that store will have to fill a perscription. Some laws say this is ok, but they also say it's NOT ok for a pharmacist not to transfer the order. So we're in agreement there.

Todd Brotsch | November 9, 2004
I guess you could always move to France. Then you'd have the power of the French Military protecting your rights.

oh wait....

Amy Austin | November 9, 2004
No, Anna... the RU-487 pill -- haven't you heard of it? ;> Of course, I was talking about RU-486.

Obviously, as I've stated before, I haven't been as good at keeping up with current events as I was in college -- my world is much smaller now. It's funny how the onset of that seems to have coincided with my enlistment -- it's truly amazing how out of touch you can become with the world when you're out to sea. (I guess that's why CNN is always on somewhere onboard, but I don't find it all that helpful -- especially if you're not one of those privileged enough to have that kind of access.)

I do seem to vaguely recall the passing of it here, though -- you'd think I'd remember something like that better, but...

Amy Austin | November 9, 2004
BTW, I apologize to everyone here for how often I seem to refer to the Navy -- sometimes I feel like that weird chic in "American Pie": "...this one time, in boot camp..." ;D But it's true what they say about it being "more than just a job" -- it is an all-consuming thing, a lifestyle (and a hard one, at that). Doing it for five years has made it hard for me to reference anything else, and it's oddly apparent to me now that I'm out. I need some fresh civvie experiences. (Get a job!)

John E Gunter | November 10, 2004
Actually, from what I understand, most military experience is that way. Course, they try to drive the individual out of you in basic, which is what they need to do. How else do you expect them to take a group of individuals and make them into a well oiled team.

So of course when you get out into the chaos that is the civilian world, there are a lot of things that we do different.

John

Mike Eberhart | November 10, 2004
Don't worry about it Amy, I'm the same way. I was in the Air Force for 5 years. I still have my military mentality. That's usually the way I do things. I still keep my haircut short like I was still in. Plus, I still work on an Air Force base, only as a contractor now though.

Anna Gregoline | November 10, 2004
Some habits die hard - my dad was in the Navy, and he still has a problem when it comes time to eat - he has to finish everything on his plate! When he was early in the service, he was at lunch and took too many butter packets - and an officer made him eat the extra butter packets in front of him to prove a point that he has to eat what he took. So my dad struggles with the idea in restaurants with huge portions that he doesn't have to eat everything! And that was like 40 years ago.

Amy Austin | November 10, 2004
Well, John, I'm pretty sure that they weren't too successful with me on that one... or I might still be in now!

Thanks, Mike -- I was hoping you would say that... but I don't hear you talk about it nearly as often as I feel like I do (but then -- I haven't read *everything* here, either)! How long have you been out? I would have thought 5-6 months was plenty of time to "leave it" -- but then again, it's not like I've been doing anything with myself since then... 'cept sleep -- lots 'n' lots of sleeep, *whenever* I feel like it! (That's the best!) I think by now I just *might* have made up for all the sleeping in I've missed out on since '99! ;DDDDDD

Anna, I've known people who couldn't slow down at a meal since getting out, but I never got to "Hoover speed" anyway. And I share your dad's mentality about portions as well, but I attribute it more to upbringing than the military -- I have always been an "eat everything on your plate" kind of girl. Not because my folks forced me to (that ended early on!), but because of the guilt that was somehow associated with the failure to do so.

I vaguely remember family members (mom, dad, grandparents) bickering over the best... "method", I guess, of getting me to eat, but I can't remember who was a forcer and who was saying, "Don't force her!" (I think it was my parents forcing and my grandmother saying not to -- that sounds right and typical.) What I *do* remember is a meal near Thanksgiving with my parents when I was about 4, I think, and there were yams. I had *no* interest in eating them, as they did not look appealing to me, and I wasn't feeling too good in the belly. When pressed, I said so, but I'm sure that the whiny 4-year-old voice wasn't convincing enough to my folks, because they pushed the issue and made me eat some. Well. A few moments after dinner, I dragged crying feet over to the white velour couch we had and promptly threw up on it. Turns out, the pediatrician said I had mono (which my grandmother, a nurse, disagreed with, but it didn't change the symptom of vomiting!)... they pretty much stopped forcing me to eat anything after that, and it took me *years* to try yams again.

Incidentally, my father still has that same couch -- it was reupholstered in a nice minty green when I was about 13 or 14 and remains in his house today.

Anna Gregoline | November 10, 2004
Yeah, my dad had parents that made him eat everything on his plate too - so the Navy just reinforced that idea!

Mike Eberhart | November 10, 2004
Amy, I've been out since 98. There's been several conversations where I have used my military background, or where I currently work. I haven't lately because everyone knows me and knows that my point of view will come from that direction.

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | November 11, 2004
Opposition to contraceptives and birth control has a correlative relationship to religion, but it is by no means dependent on it. One can arrive at the conclusion that abortion is murder without a priest to tell them so. There is a belief that making contraceptives more accessible will lead to more teenage sex and more teenage pregnancies — I couldn't disagree more with this belief, but there are plenty of people who have it, and their religion has nothing to do with it.

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Todd Brotsch | November 11, 2004
First of all, I am NOT Catholic, I don't know where you read that, but you may want to look at what I said, and not what you THINK I ment.

As for the seperation of Church and State, I'd like to see that someplace in the Constitution of the United States of America, or The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies from Great Britan that there is a seperation of church and state.

My point of doctor shopping being illegal to obtain RU-486, or any other medication is totally correct, regardless of political background.

The comment of leaving this union to be in France, where it was invented is simply that...a comment.

Incidently, I'd rather be in these United States, with all of the problems you see there to be, than any other place in the world.

Amy Austin | November 11, 2004
Woah, woah, woah there, buddy, Todd... Buddy (the flame)! Simma' dahn, nah!!!

First, I don't think anyone here said you were Catholic -- I think that was something you accidentally read into, a la George Bush and stupidity. (Remember?)

Second: (link)

And lastly, I think Jackie was also just commenting on a comment -- I think she even said that it wasn't directed at you, just that you sparked another thought. I'm pretty sure -- at least I think I am -- that we all knew that you were joking about France...

Are you in a foul mood tonight, or what, dude?!

Todd Brotsch | November 11, 2004
Did that character of Cheri Oteri's even have a name?

Anyway...if I read to far into what was said than so be it......

My points still stand

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
The point is that I feel are that if a pharmacist won't give the patient the drugs on the prescription because he/she feels the medication would have a bad reaction or side effects and is preventing harm on the patient, that is alright. Not filling a prescription because it "violates" a belief, I feel is wrong. It is not a pharmacist's, doctor's, teacher's, or politician's place to make a "belief" based judgement for someone else.

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
"As to a doctor prescribing drugs, it is the doctor's choice not that of the patient. Regardless of the FDA's approval of a drug a doctor is the one prescribing it. If the doctor feels a drug is not right for a patient then it will not be prescribed. It is illegal for a patient to go from doctor to doctor looking for a a specific pill, called doctor shopping...."

This is Todd's point about doctor shopping - I have no idea if that's really illegal, but it might appear that someone is doing that when they are just trying to get a LEGAL DRUG like RU-486. If no one will give it to that patient, then it's not the patient's fault.

I'd like to see a pharmacist just TRY to not give me my birth control pills, or, heaven forbid, emergency contraception like RU-486. I'd raise holy hell.

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
It makes you wonder. Would these pharmacists not ring up condoms also? If you're picking up your cold medicine and you grab a package of condom, would they not ring it up for you?

Lori Lancaster | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
But nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Lori Lancaster | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
The thing I don't get is when hyper religious people are against birth control like condoms - I mean, nothing is even getting conceived in that instance!

I'm so sick of people trying to put their morality onto everyone.

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
I thought "according to hyperreligious people" the only approved method of birth control is abstinence.

Lori Lancaster | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
Don't like it when people have sex? Then don't pay attention to it. No one is trying to make them have sex, so they shouldn't be trying to make people NOT have it.

It's no one's business what I do with my body. If I want to indulge in hedonistic pleasures, I don't see how that infringes on someone else's right to be abstinent.

The arrogance of these people.

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
Let's look at the whole amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Hmm, within the last year free speech has been limited. Right to assemble? hmmm, how many people were arrested for protesting the RNC? Just my 2 cents.

To reiterate my point, a violation of freedom of speech

(link)

Jackie Mason | November 11, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | November 11, 2004
I thought those who were arrested at the RNC were not being peaceful before they were arrested.

John

Anna Gregoline | November 11, 2004
If you call speaking not being peaceful, sure.

Some might have been violent, but that's not what I remember reading.

John E Gunter | November 11, 2004
Well, I would hope that the ones who were arrested were because they either didn't follow the instructions given by the police, or were violent. The right to assemble also means you need to do what the police say, assuming they aren't being unreasonable with their instructions, but we all know that the police aren't always the good guys.

But hopefully, someone finds out about the ones who aren't being the good guys and the proper authorities do their job to deal with those who don't do their job.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 11, 2004
John,
They were arresting people for walking across streets. It was way out of hand.

Scott Hardie | November 12, 2004
Coming out this weekend is "Kinsey," starring Liam Neeson. From today's StudioBriefing:

Religious conservatives and family-values groups are planning to wage a battle against Fox Searchlight's Kinsey, about the pioneering sex researcher, when the movie opens in limited release on Friday. In a statement on Wednesday, Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America charged that the movie "lionized" a man whose "proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist." Knight went on to assert that Kinsey "was the godfather of the homosexual activist movement, the campaign to mainstream pornography, and even the campaign to strike down abortion laws." The youth group Generation Life, composed of "virgins and renewed virgins," announced that it would picket theaters showing the film. And the conservative WorldNetDaily.com has taken aim at the movie in the current issue of its monthly magazine Whistleblower, in which it charges that Kinsey transformed America "in five decades from the Leave It to Beaver innocence of the 1950s to today's wanton, 'anything-goes' sexual anarchy."
Look, it's a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full debate. Teenagers are more likely to have sex today because of a sexually charged culture (though we're still more sexually repressed than most of the rest of the industrialized world), but because of scientists like Kinsey, today's teens also have the information and contraceptives necessary to prevent pregnancy and STDs when they do have sex. I'd rather be raising teens today than in the fifties, though to be fair I might change that answer if I actually had any teenagers. :-)

Anyway, it's one thing to take a stand against a sexually open society and the man who helped bring it about, but it's another thing to spread lies about that man. I'm disappointed in the charges of child molestation against him. (link)

Lori Lancaster | November 12, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | November 12, 2004
Lori, you mean if you don't use it, it doesn't grow back?

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist!

It is this kind of extreme position that makes me dislike organized religions. I know not all of them are quite that bad, but the ones who go to that extreme make the rest look bad.

That's partly why I don't go to church anymore, well that and I don't feel that I have to if I wish to communicate with the maker of the universe. Yes I know, there are quite a few arguments that make my belief that there is a supreme being invalid, but this isn't a discussion for that and I'm just pointing out that you can be someone who has faith and believes there is a greater being and not be close minded into thinking that everything that man has written down that was 'said' by that being is correct.

John

Lori Lancaster | November 12, 2004
[hidden by request]

John E Gunter | November 12, 2004
Seriously, I feel very saddened by those women who have lost their virginity in the case of rape. It is a very unfair experience for them and one that some never ever recover from. Course, I also feel sad for women who loose their virginity to the wrong guy.

Unfortunately, there is only so much you can do to prepare your children for those steps and there really is no owner’s manual for parenthood. Plus, even if there were, the instructions would either be so vanilla as to be too vague or not be correct for all children. About the only thing I can suggest is to look at the child in question and see how they need to be instructed when the time comes.

Plus, even though that conversation might be somewhat uncomfortable for both parties, you need to make sure that you have that conversation with them. Letting them find out on the street is the worst thing you can do. Plus, you need to instill in the child the fact that they don't have to bow to pier pressure if that isn't what they want to do. Course that goes for many things beyond just sex...

John

Scott Hardie | November 12, 2004
Let's not forget, as posted in another discussion last year: The definition of sex is sexual intercourse, the definition of a virgin is a person who has not had sexual intercourse, and the definition of sexual intercourse (link) is "physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person." In other words, young ladies in denial: If genitals were involved and the contact was sexual in nature, you lost your virginity.

And they think you have to have religion to be uppity and contemptuous.

Scott Horowitz | November 12, 2004
I don't know if this is fact or fiction, but I seem to remember hearing in the news that women were having their hymens surgically repaired to become born-again virgins?

Lori Lancaster | November 12, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | November 12, 2004
Most women's hymens are gone before they ever have sex - most are lost in childhood without penetration. So having "hymen repair" is utterly ridiculous.

It was an honest typo, but I'm hysterical over "pier pressure." Does the pier want me to go swimming or something?

John E Gunter | November 12, 2004
Heh, whoops! :-P

Usually proofread my own posts at least once first, but missed that. Color me embarrassed!

Guess I should have used peer when talking about making sure kids don't get into sex, course there always is skinny dipping, and that could lead to sex. Actually, that's what I meant, yeah, yeah. ;-)

Skunk

Amy Austin | November 12, 2004
Damn, Anna beat me to that joke!

Anna Gregoline | November 18, 2004
(link)

No more RU-486?

I think I'm going to be sick.

Scott Horowitz | November 18, 2004
See, if the republicans supported homosexual marriage, and more people became gay, then there'd be no abortions.

Kris Weberg | November 19, 2004
Actually, one of the perverse paradoxes of the conservative agenda right now is that it pursues actions likely to cause more unwanted conceptions while criminalizing abortion.

Anna Gregoline | November 19, 2004
Well said, Kris.

Also: Death penalty and war. Two other instances where there are many more innocent lives lost.

Steve West | November 19, 2004
My problem with the death penalty is that it is a perfect solution. Perfect in that it is irreversible. The American justice system, by practice not design, is inherently imperfect. I find it difficult to justify applying a perfect solution to an imperfect system.

Erik Bates | November 19, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | November 19, 2004
Considering the number of massive problems that, for example, Illinois has had with the Death Penalty, I have some major problems. IT wasn't that long ago that an appeals court in Tennessee refused to allow a new trial for a death-penalty convict despite DNA evidence proving his innocence.

But then, I don't see prison as meant for punishment. I see it as the place we put people who harm society so that they can't continue to harm society. If you learn someone is innocent -- that is, that they didn't harm society to the degree you initially believed, or didn't at all -- you let them out of jail. If they're dead, well, that's harder to do.

Prison may act as a deterrent or as a punishment, sure, but on the balance it doesn't do a good job of reforming criminals, nor, by definition, can anything be an effective deterrent to non-premeditated crimes. And, in all honesty, nonviolent offenders probably don't belong in the kinds of prisons they end up in. Thieves and potheads being locked up with murderers and thugs is a poor, poor idea of prison.

But really, most people in America apply, to a certain extent, the logic of war to issues of crime. A criminal is not merely treated as someone who has violated the law, but as someone who is permanently outside it, an "enemy within" whom society must treat as it would an enemy from without.

And that, to my mind, is never a good kind of logic to use on people who are, for good or for ill, fellow citizens.


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Anna Gregoline

Organ Donation

I think we talked about it before, and I'm not going to get preachy, I'm just curious - who here is an organ donor on their driver's license? Go »

Juggling Causes Changes in the Brain

According to this, juggling causes changes in the brain. So if I get the brain changes first, can I then learn to juggle? Go »

Beauty Contests

Beauty contests, despite some criticism, are still very popular. In your opinion, what are the main reasons for their popularity? Go »

There is So Much to Say...

...that I don't know where to begin. Go »

Death Penalty

This year, Maryland has been on a path to become the first state to abolish capital punishment, and a bill to repeal the death penalty will be voted on in committee within days. Go »

Choosing Your Time

If you had to live in some other historical period, which would you choose, and why? Go »