February 21st, 2003


Previous Entry Next Entry
jimbojones
01:55 pm - Like I really needed another reason...
... to fucking despise George W. Bush.

In December 2002, W. David Hager was one of eleven physicians appointed to the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs ... he is also vehemently pro-life and has vigorously played a part in the campaign to get the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone (RU-486), a drug that terminates pregnancies. He is indeed the author of a number of books in which he's advocated prayer and the reading of the Scriptures as cures for medical ills ... Time magazine reported that "In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women."
GET YOUR DAMNED RELIGION THE FUCK OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT, YOU DELUDED HICK!

You see, this is why I LIKED Bill Clinton. Yes, he liked some strange pussy. Yes, he got involved in some shady-ass land deals. Yes, he'd lie to cover his own ass in a heartbeat. But you know what? If he thought that fully half of the country would be bloody APPALLED at him trying to force something politically, HE LEFT IT ALONE.

Whereas this Dubya motherfucker sits in the Oval Office like a red-handed usurper, squatting on the throne with a still-bloodied sword in hand. He doesn't give a good goddamn what ANYBODY thinks - his attitude is "I have the throne NOW, deal with it."

When Gore and Bush were running for office, I didn't expect to like either one of them much. But the depths of my loathing for this Bush administration have FAR outstripped any expectations I had - and I can't begin to believe that Gore would have made anything like the outrageous assaults on civil liberties and constitutional precedents that Bush has.

When the USSR was still in business, its stated goal was eventual, uncontested world domination. The Bush administration has very clearly got the same sort of goal set up for a theocratic and authoritarian domination of the American public. Even if you are a christian conservative, I BEG you, THINK about what letting this administration seize this much power MEANS for your future, and your children's. GET THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE.

(credit to herbaliser for the heads up.)

 
Current Mood: infuriated
Current Music: Public Enemy - I Don't Wanna Be Called Yo' Nigga

(7 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:



 
[User Picture] From: pinballsorceror
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 11:46 am
  (Link)

I agree but this may be a good thing for us

I agree with your sentiment, but I think all this venom may be good for liberal-minded folk like you and I. Bush has on several occassions made some very clear pro-life proclamations, this is bad for him. Abortion has been political kryptonite for politicians for decades now. The canned response for the longest time was "more research needs to be given to the subject" because moderates go pro-choice and conservatives are rapacious about complaining, they love to do it. I think these neo-conservative stances on these issues combined with dissent over Iraq and neglecting the economy will cause a backlash against the republican party.
I hope this happens not really just for the reasons of breaking the republican control of the government, but also I believe the Democratic party is really getting weak. Many democrats are voting republican, hopefully some kind of ire would cause the parties to recrystallize some more, because right now the two-party system is kind of a lie.
So to get this man out of office, we need to encourage him to make more decisions like this, rattle the bones so loudly that the people can hear the shaking over the embers of September 11th.


 
[User Picture] From: mightymonju
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 02:53 pm
  (Link)
According to Snopes:

Dr. Hager makes no bones about his beliefs but says they won't compromise his judgment: "Yes, I'm pro-life. But that's not going to keep me from objectively evaluating medication. I believe there are some safety concerns (about mifepristone) and they should be evaluated."

Contrary to the claim made in the now widely-circulated e-mail decrying his appointment, Dr. Hager says he does not deny birth-control prescriptions to unmarried women. However, Time magazine reported that "In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women."


So, please, tell me why, in this Land of the Free that you claim to hold so dear, you are so radically opposed to someone who is religious? The claim for him not prescribing mifepristone to unmarried women is unsubstantiated at best, no matter how familiar these sources claim to be. He is already on that FDA committee, appointed as of December 2002...have you noticed your reproductive rights being infringed of late? And please note, he is 1 of eleven appointed to said committee, so this man, no matter how religious, is not going to rule with anything near an iron fist. Nor is he going to be handing out individual prescriptions. He is in a position to evaluate and make recommedations on new drugs. Christ, with people like you around, it's a wonder people even dare think the word "religion" within 1500 miles of you.

Bill Clinton was a spineless poll-number hound. How you could say you'd want someone back in office who barely had any convictions (pun intended) and rarely stood for the ones he did have astounds me. I do compliment you on your hyperbole, that was very nice.

When the USSR was still in business, its stated goal was eventual, uncontested world domination. The Bush administration has very clearly got the same sort of goal set up for a theocratic and authoritarian domination of the American public.


So they're planning on uncontested world domination of theocratic and authoritarian domination of the American public? That's lame, I know, but you're making a flimsy, inflammatory parallel there and I thought you shouldn't get away with it.


 
[User Picture] From: jimbojones
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 04:21 pm
  (Link)

So, please, tell me why, in this Land of the Free that you claim to hold so dear, you are so radically opposed to someone who is religious? The claim for him not prescribing mifepristone to unmarried women is unsubstantiated at best, no matter how familiar these sources claim to be.


The claim is that he refused to prescribe CONTRACEPTIVES to unmarried women, not RU-486, and it's substantiatied from two separate sources as reported by Time magazine, which isn't exactly a notorious yellow rag. It's also circumstantially substantiated by, well, pretty much everything the man's ever done and published - he wrote books saying that prayer was the answer to PMS, after all. As for the mifepristone itself, the "claim" is not that he has refused to prescribe it to unmarried women, the RECORD is that he has vigorously opposed its use in research in cancer prevention and treatment programs, simply because it CAN be used as an abortifacient - much like all the jackasses who oppose the prescription of medical marijuana "because people can use it to get high" in spite of legal alcohol sales, dextromethorphan-based cough suppressants, you name it.

Bill Clinton was a spineless poll-number hound. How you could say you'd want someone back in office who barely had any convictions (pun intended) and rarely stood for the ones he did have astounds me.


You're damned right that's who I want back in office - I don't WANT a leader who will impose his "convictions" on me, I WANT someone at the top who actually PAYS FUCKING ATTENTION to what the public at large wants, and does their job accordingly. Incidentally, if you genuinely believe anybody who makes it to the Presidency is anything faintly like "spineless", you really need to take a closer look at the real world. "Shady?" Sure. Spineless? Hahahahaha...

So they're planning on uncontested world domination of theocratic and authoritarian domination of the American public?


Let's see, what has the Bush administration called for and rammed through whenever possible in the short time it's been in business - Drastically heightened police powers: check. Legal methods to detain citizens without formally charging them with a crime: check. Legal methods to search and seize property from citizens without a warrant: check. Setting up programs to pressure private citizens to spy on other private citizens: check. Working toward the imposition of religious-based mandate on the legal system: check. Driving single-mindedly and heedlessly toward a war that the majority of the citizens and the VAST majority of the rest of the free world is extremely dubious about at best: check.

Fuck, what do YOU think this administration is aiming for? You sneer at earlier administrations as "popularity contests" and applaud this one for its "convictions" and willingness to act on them WITHOUT bothering about public opinion - what the hell do you want out of your government, exactly? Would you be equally thrilled if an atheist was in the Oval Office and ramming through legislation making it illegal to teach scripture to children on the basis that it was irrational? How about if we had a muslim president, and we started seeing a Shar'ia influence?

That's lame, I know, but you're making a flimsy, inflammatory parallel there and I thought you shouldn't get away with it.


Bravo, bravo - worry about what your fellow citizen is "getting away with", while your government puts all the measures in place necessary to arrest you without charging you with a crime, detain you indefinitely, wiretap you without a warrant, or seize your property on undefined "suspicion."

I'M not the threat you should be worrying about.


 
[User Picture] From: zeldappa
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 04:39 pm
  (Link)
When G.W. was named president, I seriously thought, "Ahh, what harm can one man do in four short years?" I think I might have been wrong.

A while back I started up a Word file entitled "Why I hate George W" so that I'd have easy access to all the reasons, all the little things he's done that don't get that much press but that piss me off to no end. I ended up deleting that file one day out of apathy, but I think it's time to start it back up.

I can't recall every detail right now, but there have been several decisions he's made concerning reproductive rights that certainly lead me to believe there's a deliberate plan to change the laws and restrict women's rights. I seriously hope it will be the death of him (politically, of course. I wish the man no serious physical harm.)


 
[User Picture] From: jimbojones
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 06:13 pm
  (Link)
I seriously hope it will be the death of him (politically, of course. I wish the man no serious physical harm.)

On the one hand, I of course believe that is an accurate statement, and echo it. On the other hand, I am desperately unhappy at the political necessity of making damn sure that it is loudly and publically made.


 
[User Picture] From: zeldappa
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 08:57 pm
  (Link)

Kudos to you for catching that!


 
[User Picture] From: discogravy
Date: February 21st, 2003 - 05:11 pm
  (Link)
remember the halcyon days of a good economy? and wtf is up with bush's "WAR WAR WAR WAR" chant?


> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com