[T]he president directed all U.S. agencies to “promote and protect” the rights of gay and lesbian people through diplomatic means, including the allocation of foreign aid. And in a rousing speech before the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Hillary Clinton defended the universality of the administration’s cause, saying, “Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct, but in fact they are one and the same.... Being gay is not a Western invention... It is a human reality.”(Meanwhile, Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage here in the United States, but look over here don't look at that. Unless you don't cotton to gay rights, in which case, please look at that.)
2. And this one's for you folks who care about the rights of unborn human beings:
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius yesterday overruled the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to make Plan-B, the morning-after pill, available without a prescription to any woman of child-bearing age...(So abortion-rights supporters must accept a little pain. They know Obama is really on their side. He's just got to establish a little credibility on the other side right now. Harsh criticism from people like Kirsten Moore is exactly what Obama needs, isn't it? A phony wedge between him and the abortion-rights advocates.)
Plan B is currently available without a prescription to any woman aged 17 or over. Anyone younger than that needs a prescription. The FDA’s recommendation would have allowed girls as young as 11 to purchase the drug in any drug store without any parental consent or doctor’s prescription....
Women’s advocacy groups were also quick to denounce Sebelius. From this morning’s Washington Post:
“We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. “This administration is unwilling to stand up to any controversy and do the right thing for women’s health. That’s shameful.”
পোস্টগুলি
৮১টি মন্তব্য:
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius yesterday overruled the Food and Drug Administration’s decision
Hahahaha!
Remember,
Obama and Biden support doubling federal funding for basic research and changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.
What does Plan B have to do with the rights of unborn human beings?
“This administration is unwilling to stand up to any controversy and do the right thing for women’s health. That’s shameful.”
Very poorly worded press release from a left-wing group. The administration DID do the "right thing" by at least two different meanings that come to mind.
"What does Plan B have to do with the rights of unborn human beings?"
It's a gesture. It doesn't matter. Why are the reproductive health folks bent out of shape about it?
[T]he president directed all U.S. agencies to “promote and protect” the rights of gay and lesbian people through diplomatic means, including the allocation of foreign aid
Going to be tough justifying foreign aid to the Muslim Theocracies.
sounds like Karzai got his last Afghani
WTF FDA?!?! Have any of them taken the morning after pill? It's serious medication that can cause serious problems and complications. And how is the dose for an 11 year old the same as that of an adult woman?
I give Sebellius no credit for the decision. FDA's recommendation was extreme. Begs the question: did the FDA make the recommendation because it is completely blinded by left-wing ideology, or did the FDA make the recommendation to give political cover to its preferred left-wing candidate.
Professor, I think you have it exactly right. I guess that's not a useful comment, but it's what I have.
Going to be tough justifying foreign aid to the Muslim Theocracies.
Should be a piece of cake, if the recipient is someone like Iran. Their government has stated publicly that there are no gay people in their country.
I would suggest that the reproductive rights people are bent out of shape because their attitude is "if you're not with us 100%, you're against us." There is no middle ground. Of course, when the the pro-lifers have the same attitude, the reproductive rights people believe such all or nothing approach to be illegitimate.
Here is some discussion from a Catholic perspective about whether Plan B should be considered to cause an abortion.
Obviously, if you think a human life begins at conception and the drug works by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum, then it is the destruction of a human life. If the drug works by preventing ovulation, then there is no human life, though there are still the kind of issues relating to birth control that some people have.
Pander away, DHOTUS.
I see you've shifted from "Hope & Change" to "Fairness"...
ie. you think Democrats are really stupid enough to come back to you for another dose of snake oil.
Professor, I think you have it exactly right. I guess that's not a useful comment, but it's what I have.
Just quote Blazing Saddles and declare HOWARD JOHNSON IS RIGHT!!!
Agreement without adding anything in a short, buzz-worthy statement.
I'm going to object to the notion that governmental recognition of gay marriage is a human rights issue.
That's defining up the the notion of rights.
We can't get jobs or keep our homes, but by billy jingo as long as the lezbeens can kill their foetuses the country's on the right track!
11?
11?!
An 11-year-old might get her monthly, but that doesn't make her a "woman."
Good God.
"Politics trumps science?" How about "Common sense trumps idiocy." Shocking for this administration, I know, but wow.
Science?!
I need to switch to decaf...
d-day, your point is good. I myself require daily medicine to stay alive, and my medicine is commonly used and is fifteen years old. But it's still prescription-only. The FDA lacks a coherent philosophy of its own mission.
Scott M, you, too, have a point. WRT that movie, however, I prefer the name of another commenter: "revenant!"
"That's defining up the the notion of rights."
How so? You think access to the institution of marriage isn't fundamental and deeply important? Aren't gay people being excluded precisely because of how important it is? You are denying some human beings the ability to transform their deepest love relationship into a legal marriage, a right other people have.
Ann: Obviously, if you think a human life begins at -
Not so obvious. You've touched on the fact that we don't know with 100% certainty when life begins.
I thought our Code of Law was predicated on values like "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Therefore, until we know with certainty that a fetus is not a human life, we err on the side of Life.
You are denying some human beings the ability to transform their deepest love relationship into a legal marriage, a right other people have.
There's that word again, marriage, tripping everyone up.
Gesture is an action to express feelings.
Or as Ambrose Bierce would say, an action the conceal the absense of feelings.
It's deeply depressing that everything Obama does is so cynically political in nature. I doubt that even the most pessimistic Founder had Obama's type of crassness in mind when they created the republic.
What if you are a 11 year old lesbian that went straight for the night and now want Plan B?
This person probably has mixed emotions about these two issues today.
Going to be tough justifying foreign aid to the Muslim Theocracies.
Good. This is good not just gay people and the people who love them, but it's good for the West.
Hillary Clinton says a true thing, but what she doesn't say is more important.
"Being gay is not a Western invention."
True.
But accepting gay IS a Western invention.
I know there are commenters here that aren't that accepting, and many that disagree with the domestic politics associated with gay rights. If you must, you can replace the word "accepting" with "tolerating". The open society is a Western invention. Let's be proud of it.
How can he do this?
It's above his pay grade!
PS Translation: GodZero is very, very scared.
You are denying some human beings the ability to transform their deepest love relationship into a legal marriage, a right other people have.
We also deny Polygamists that right.
Isn't that just limiting the "right" to marriage by values-testing the relationship?
Elle wrote An 11-year-old might get her monthly, but that doesn't make her a "woman."
Only really old looking 11-year-olds can get the drug now.
Everyone in this country already has the right to marry anyone and anything they choose. However, the tax structure is such that only certain arrangements are granted subsidies.
Is that not the case?
Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct, but in fact they are one and the same.... Being gay is not a Western invention... It is a human reality.”
I bet that is going over well in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
Smart diplomacy!
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
How’s the Gay Rights Foreign Policy going to work? If Bashir Assad says, “OK I’m ordering all the F@ggots gunned down in the streets.” NOW we’ll be outraged? If Iran says, “We’re building a nuclear weapon and hope to target P-Town Rhode Island.” THEN, we’ll act?
This gay thing is foolish, and one of the reasons I left Amnesty International. Most places with horrid human rights records don’t cull them on the basis of whether you’re sleeping with the same sex, there abysmal to EVERYONE! So, it’s so utterly pointless to complain, about Burma/Iran/Syria/North Korea IF they target gays. What we didn’t mind if they were gunning children and womyn down in the streets, but they cross a line when they gun down gays and lesbians? It’s domestic pandering at its worst.
Ptown is in Mass, not Rhode Island.
And its fab.
What, we didn’t mind if they were gunning children and womyn down in the streets, but they cross a line when they gun down gays and lesbians? It’s domestic pandering at its worst.
Excellent point.
You think access to the institution of marriage isn't fundamental and deeply important?
No, I don't. I think that the institution of marriage serves a function for raising the next generation of society. I believe that children raised by a man and a woman is superior, overall, than being raised by two women or two men.
I don't support extracting children from same-sex households, nor do I support persecuting homosexuals. But withholding an action (legal recognition) is not persecution.
You are denying some human beings the ability to transform their deepest love relationship into a legal marriage, a right other people have.
I've found that the majority of the people who have made this argument spent much of their younger years arguing that marriage was just a piece of paper. I've found the pivot quite admirable.
Now, I'm not saying you have made this argument, so I'll address the issue. How is it a human right to have official government recognition of a relationship?
If the government took the libertarian route and did away with marriage entirely, would that be the equivalent of abolishing the 4th amendment? Does the notion of human rights require a governmental action or a governmental inaction?
As far as differentiating between the two, I made my argument above. I recognize that there is an increasing number of same-sex households with children, but this does not justify what amounts to a fundamental change in the definition of marriage.
I have other concerns with it, such as folks like Dan Savage who think that more marriages should be open (and yes, there are straight folks who think that as well, a pox on them too).
However, I'd be willing to support the notion of SSM if we could ban uncontested divorces as well.
"Not so obvious. You've touched on the fact that we don't know with 100% certainty when life begins."
I didn't say "obviously, life begins at conception"!
I said "obviously, if you believe..."
Is that really so hard to read? I could have written: "If you believe life begins at conception, then obviously, you should think that it is the destruction of a human life if the drug works by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum."
"Ann Althouse said...
"That's defining up the the notion of rights."
How so? You think access to the institution of marriage isn't fundamental and deeply important?"
That's the litmus test to see if a desire is a "right" now?
"Fundamental and deeply important?"
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Ptown is in Mass, not Rhode Island.
And its fab
Sorry Titus, my bad…I’m sure it IS “fabulous” Andrew Sullivan always raves(d) about it…when he’s not raving about the uteruses of certain Conservative womyn….
A fun fact about Ptown. Off season it only has 3000 people but during the summer months it has a population over 100,000.
There is also a place called Dick Dock, where fags get Dick. Condos overlook Dick Dock and nightly some lady in her condo will get out a megaphone and yell,
"Put your dicks away"
"Stop Sucking Cock"
"I can see your cocks"
I am serious too. She has been doing it for years.
Dick Dock
've found that the majority of the people who have made this argument spent much of their younger years arguing that marriage was just a piece of paper.
Wow that's some argument there sport. Is that the best conservatards got?
Titus - we haven't got an update about your Indian hubby. Did you have dindin with him?
"That's the litmus test to see if a desire is a "right" now? 'Fundamental and deeply important?'"
It's the doctrinal test for whether there is a substantive due process right, applied by the United States Supreme Court finding a substantive due process right to marry, for example, in Zablocki v. Redhail:
"Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," id. at 125 U. S. 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id. at 262 U. S. 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S. at 316 U. S. 541 More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause."
I've always thought Rhode Island should annex Cape Cod. Massachusetts doesn't need it. We can call it Swampmarshia. Or Flatsandistan.
Henry - "Only really old looking 11-year-olds can get the drug now."
I'm guessing that's why they're having sex at 11, they look mature enough to handle it?
Or are we talking immaculate conception?
I'm locking my kids in their closets.
I'm guessing that's why they're having sex at 11, they look mature enough to handle it?
Only girls from broken homes would have sex that young, most likely black or Mexican.
I love the song My Old Cape Cod.
Do you know that hag is still alive?
My mom and dad see her every year performing in Arizona for the white hairs.
My mom said she can barely walk, but God Bless Her ( and God Bless America) she is out there making a buck.
"Put your Dicks Away".
"Why are the reproductive health folks bent out of shape about it [plan B]?"
"Reproductive health" is verbal smog, Professor, and you know it. Planned Parenthood exists for one reason - straight out, state-encouraged murder. Which, along with racism, is the bedrock of the Democrat party. The left will switch on a dime when it comes to their vaunted 'principles' (war bad unless it's a D in the White House, money in politics bad unless the D is funneling illegal contributions into his warchest, state-sponsored religion bad, unless it's Islam, executive rule by fiat bed unless it's a D doing it), but you cannot climb higher than alternate alderman in Podunk if you don't freely celebrate - in fact, encourage - the 'freedom' of women to rip whatever parasite happens to be lurking in their womb and jamming scissors into the back of its neck.
You would sooner see a Democrat lead the Pledge of Allegiance in a government school before you saw one disavow abortion.
Conservatards - love the unborn fetus, hate the mother. Then when the fetus is born, hate the baby.
There is a t shirt shop in Ptown and you can really get t shirts that say,
"Put Your Dicks Away"
and
"Stop Sucking Cock".
That lady is famous, but no one can identify her on the street because you never see her face. No one know who she is.
Isn't that kind of interesting.
Elle wrote: I'm guessing that's why they're having sex at 11, they look mature enough to handle it?
That seems to be the premise of Ms. Kirsten-Moore.
Here's one thing I find weird about the FDA's idea. Say an 11-year-old attempted to buy Plan B and the clerk asked for ID. How many 11-year-olds have photo ID?
Under the FDA's idea, could a drugstore refuse to sell Plan B to a minor that didn't have a drivers' license? Hmmm. How old do you need to have a drivers' license in most states?
Some gays think the Dick Dock Lady is a disgruntled fag who is pissed because no one will suck his cock.
I don't know, I have studied tapes and she sounds like a real woman to me.
One summer they sampled some of her rantings and it was a hot techno song that all the clubs played that summer.
" Ann Althouse said...
"That's the litmus test to see if a desire is a "right" now? 'Fundamental and deeply important?'"
It's the doctrinal test for whether there is a substantive due process right, applied by the United States Supreme Court finding a substantive due process right to marry, for example, in Zablocki v. Redhail:"
Odd we see over and over things like "without which there would be neither civilization",""fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,", and "to marry, establish a home and bring up children".
Aren't they talking of procreation?
But hey, get ready for polygamy.
but you cannot climb higher than alternate alderman in Podunk if you don't freely celebrate - in fact, encourage - the 'freedom' of women to rip whatever parasite happens to be lurking in their womb and jamming scissors into the back of its neck.
I bet Christopher is a huge hit at dinner parties.
"Uh, dude, say it, don't spray it!"
"Conservatards - love the unborn fetus, hate the mother. Then when the fetus is born, hate the baby."
Well said.
Fen said...
You are denying some human beings the ability to transform their deepest love relationship into a legal marriage, a right other people have.
We also deny Polygamists that right.
Similar to voting, marriage may be a rite, but it's not a right. In both cases, society makes distinctions about who is allowed to do it.
This won't matter or apply to the great majority of American citizens.
It'll matter to two groups:
1) People who disagree with the use of IVF/ IUDs/ and the morning after pill.
Plan B works by either suppressing ovulation or by not allowing implantation, whereas in IVF we know fertilization takes place and many embryos are discarded. Or killed, depending on your point of view.
2) Some number of teenage girls who have sex and experience a bust condom will not take the pill because they won't get a hold of a doctor within 72 hours.
Bummer for them. They had a chance to suppress ovulation. Women are only fertile for a 12-24 hour time but those sperm will hang out in the uterus and tubes for 2-5 days.
I know, garage, what a drag, right? So much easier to parrot your Little Black Jesus and call it a "punishment," no?
Better, just implement a mandatory sterilization policy, like, for .. humans unfit for parenting.
Nip it in the bud.
"We are outraged . . . "
The three words that tell me the rest of what is said is pure political posturing.
Maybe the morning after pill is high in saturated fat. Eating fatty foods seems to be the only thing that the liberals think that minors should not be allowed to do. I actually am impressed that the Administration had the guts to protect female minors from a drug that has potentially serious side effects.
"J said...
Better, just implement a mandatory sterilization policy, like, for .. humans unfit for parenting.
Nip it in the bud."
Anyone have a DeLorean and flux capacitor I can borrow?
We are outraged
Everytime someone is outraged, if they are perpetually outraged, it kinda diminishes the effect.
I am perfectly happy for gays to marry and gain all of the benefits and obligations including the ability of one party to preemptively call for a divorce and demand alimony. I am not sure how the courts would determine which party would be due the alimony, presumably one party would claim it but could not the other party argue they were the ones who were due?
Should heterosexuals determine that a new rite is required to sanctify their bonds, a re-branding if you will, and it is exclusively available to heterosexuals would homosexuals demand they be included even if there were no differences in legal benefits?
Should heterosexuals determine that a new rite is required to sanctify their bonds, a re-branding if you will, and it is exclusively available to heterosexuals would homosexuals demand they be included even if there were no differences in legal benefits?
Ask the Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews. I'm betting the answer is "a few".
Henry: At least for the moment, I believe the larger issue is gay marriage at the government level. Churches are for the moment allowed to set their own rules. For the moment.
Well, I'm glad to see the administration go to the mat for the gay community, who probably constitute 3 or 4% of humanity.
However, if you happen to be Christian (about 29-32%) of the world's population, well, then, you're kinda outta luck, aren't you? Sure sucks to be you, ya dumb Copts! Gotta take Mass in an underground church in China? Too bad. The list goes on and on.
And while homosexuality isn't a Western invention, the idea that homosexuality is an "identity" is not only a Western invention, it's a damn recent one at that.
This may be the reason.
It seems like having to prove your age would be an onerous burden. It would mostly likely require a photo ID, and we all know how hard those are to get.
The morning after pill thing intrigues me. I don't really ahve an opinion on the morality of it (I'm staunchly anti-abortion, but I'm inclined to find that that's not abortion, though I really could study it more.) But I've always though that it sounded extremely unhealthy - just flush your body with all those hormones, over and over (which you know people will do). Skeeves me out.
Can an 11-year-old get an enema without a prescription?
(Inspired by Lyssa's "skeeves me out").
@Henry,
You realize that the 11 year old girl's school nurse can't give her an aspirin without an act of Congress, don't you?
But have a teen-age girl hormone-up all by herself without telling another living soul to end a possible pregnancy --- what could go wrong?
Some famous Marxist mentor of Obama's youth must have told him about the one step backwards and two steps forward standard Marxist Revolution tactic.
You realize that the 11 year old girl's school nurse can't give her an aspirin without an act of Congress, don't you?
Really? Our school nurse gives my daughter insulin shots every day.
"Lyssa said...
But I've always though that it sounded extremely unhealthy - just flush your body with all those hormones, over and over (which you know people will do). Skeeves me out."
Not to worry. They are free range hormones, and totally organic.
You think access to the institution of marriage isn't fundamental and deeply important?
If the states, as some advocate, got out of the "marriage business" and gave out no licenses to married couples, would that be a denial of basic/fundamental human rights?
And when exactly did this "basic human right" come into existence? Two years ago? Three? Ten?
Who here was advocating recognizing gay marriage 20 years ago? Almost no one.
FWIW, I support the legal recognition of SSM but I don't think limiting that recognition to opposite sex couples is a denial of basic human rights. Gay couples can still marry informally; it's just not legall recognized (yes, I know, that's a big difference).
We're talking basic, fundamental human rights here. Not something we discovered five years ago.
@garage,
"Our school nurse gives my daughter insulin shots every day."
Really? Without her parents and her doctor's express & written permission? She just wandered in one day and said to the nurse "hey, could you give me my insulin shots every day?"
Hell, I'd sue that school if that were true.
Really? Without her parents and her doctor's express & written permission?
No permission needed from our doctor. The school did ask for an action plan. The biggest problem was getting the one nurse for our entire school district to be available.
That said I think I took your comment a bit too literally.
Obviously, if you think . . .
___________
What one merely "thinks" or "believes" is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is true as a matter of long-known scientific fact, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's invincible ignorance with its protestations of the matter being eternally unknowable.
How does the newly-conceived entity grow if it is not living? If that growing entity is not a distinct human being, being composed entirely of human DNA that is distinct from both mother and father, what is it?
This is not a matter of belief or opinion or what one thinks. Either it is human life or it is not.
When the 11 year old can go buy some pseudaphed for her stuffy nose, we'll talk.
"Really? Our school nurse gives my daughter insulin shots every day."
You signed papers giving that permission and you provide the insulin.
I have kids too, you know. In order for my child to be given OTC drugs I have to provide them to the nurse and I have to sign papers that they have on file giving permission to give my child a Tylenol. If my KID has Tylenol in her back-pack and a teacher sees it, she's in deep doo-doo.
So no, garage, the fact that the nurse gives insulin shots does not mean that the nurse can give your child Tylenol *or* that your 11 year old can have OTC medication in her back pack and take it herself.
The notion that it's at all reasonable that an 11 year old can buy something like Plan B or have other medical procedures done, any medical procedures done, without parental consent is moronic, but for some reason if it has to do with sex (and legally rape often enough) and reproduction we're supposed to pretend that a child is an adult.
It's not reason or science, it's irrational. It can't be logically justified without simply pretending nothing else exists in the world.
I see that our Commander In Chief has nothing to say about the dropping of beastiality as a no no by the Army. I kid you not. The topic was raised at a White House press conference and titteringly dismissed by Jay Carney. Terribly starchy of me of course but I'd say it is of some import that beastiality in the Army now has the blessing of, or at least acceptance by the Obama administration.
My mistake: the Senate voted 93 - 7 to repeal the ban on beastiality in the military. Bad enough. Then when Jay Carney was asked about what the president's stand was on the vote he tittered.
Tittered and dismissed the reporter for the reporter's quacherie in asking the question.
"Gaucherie" is the word I think you're searching for, ric.
But this kind of nonsense is exactly why I plan to vote for Obama. This country needs to be burned to the ground if this kind of perversion is what our solons are occupying their time with. Every one of those 97 should be swinging from a lamppost, at best.
As for Little Black Jesus' opinion on bestiality. . .well, the jokes write themselves.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন