In February, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote:When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.
The Gag RuleDavid Grimes, MD wrote:Whether the issue is the Kyoto treaty about global warming, lead and mercury in the environment, or women's reproductive rights, this administration doggedly disregards science in the pursuit of ideological agendas that are unacceptable to most Americans. The unwarranted -- and, ultimately, unlawful -- intrusion of the Congress and the President into the personal affairs of Terry Schiavo, for example, gripped the nation's attention in March of this year. Regrettably, the pervasive and pernicious intrusion of the Congress and the President into the private lives of other American women has received scant attention. Here, I describe 6 examples that highlight federal policies with potential to harm women and present the published evidence refuting each of these policies. These policies are ideologically driven and are not only medically wrong but ethically wrong.
Misrepresentation of Science on National Institutes of Health Websites...The policy mandates that no US funds can be provided to any foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO) that uses its own money to perform abortions, except in cases in which a woman's life is threatened or she is victim of rape or incest. This restriction applies also to NGO in countries where abortion is legal and widely used. Moreover, the ban prohibits NGOs from providing advice and information regarding abortion, referral to other healthcare facilities, or lobbying their governments regarding their abortion laws -- hence the description "gag rule."George W. Bush wrote:If I'm the President, we're going to have emergency-room care, we're going to have gag orders.
...More concerning to us as physicians is that this gag rule also violates a physician's ethical obligation to provide information and informed consent. The global gag rule forces doctors overseas to violate the Hippocratic Oath and medical ethics.
The net effect is tragic. It deprives care to the most disadvantaged women in some of the world's most desperate places... women living in regions ravaged by HIV infection, refugees and migrants displaced by violent conflict -- who are often victims of sexual violence and rape -- widows of war, victims of famine. As might be predicted, depriving others of information and care leads to more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths.
Over-the-Counter Emergency Contraception (estrogen analog)In the span of 5 months during this administration, the public was advised of no association between abortion and breast cancer risk, a positive association, and no association... all in the absence of any new data. The inescapable conclusion is that federal censorship led to bowdlerizing Web sites that contained any information inconsistent with the prevailing right-wing orthodoxy about sex and sexuality.
Abstinence EducationI testified before the FDA in December 2003, as did many others. The review was thorough and scientific. After a resounding endorsement by the joint committees, with a vote of 23 to 4 to approve over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive, Plan B (Barr Laboratories), we were confident emergency contraception would soon be more accessible to women in need....No so. On May 6, 2004, a single FDA bureaucrat -- Steven Galson, Acting Director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research -- an appointee with little FDA experience, overruled the advisory committees and the FDA's own staff.
...Although required by federal law to approve, decline, or specify other issues, the FDA violated federal law and stonewalled once again. Anticipating this obstructive behavior, the Center for Reproductive Rights sued the FDA in federal court the very same day. So, the FDA made a medically indefensible decision and then, when challenged, responded with no decision at all. Our tax dollars are paying for this charade.
Fetal Pain and Protecting the VulnerableWhat has prompted the missionary zeal for abstinence-only education programs in the United States? Like big oil and Enron, it comes from Texas. When the President was Governor of Texas, his pet abstinence-only education project had a notable record. Notable in that of all 50 states, Texas had the least decline in pregnancy rate among women aged 15 to 17 years. On the basis of this stunning success story, the President now is spending nearly quarter of a billion tax dollars annually promoting the abstinence education.
Public health policy should be based on evidence. In 2002, DiCenso and colleagues published in the British Medical Journal a systematic review of the evidence about abstinence-only programs. Although most teen pregnancy prevention programs were ineffective, abstinence-only programs did have a statistically significant effect -- in the wrong direction. The risk of pregnancy was 54% higher among those exposed to this faith-based promulgation of chastity.
Physician's SummaryRonald Reagan wrote:Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.On January 24, 2005, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas introduced legislation, Senate bill 51 (Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 ), that will punish physicians heavily should they fail to advise women of the potential for fetal pain after 20 weeks' gestation. This bogus claim dates back at least 2 decades, when Ronald Reagan observed that fetuses suffer long and agonizing pain during abortion. Unlike Hollywood actors who venture into politics, those of us who have ventured into embryology and neuroanatomy know that pain fibers do not penetrate the base of the cortex until 26 weeks. The first EEG potentials in the brain in response to stimulation in the periphery appear at 29 weeks. And all of us here know how many induced abortions occur at 29 weeks and later.George W. Bush wrote:The essence of civilization is this: The strong have a duty to protect the weak. We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent, the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable.
In "compassionate conservatism," the President claims that we have a societal obligation to protect the vulnerable. This is the same man who, in 6 years as governor of Texas, ordered the execution of 152 persons...more than any other governor in any other state in the history of our country. Some were mentally retarded, some had defense lawyers who slept during the trials, and 2 were 17 years old at the time of the crime. Last year, the Lancet reported that US troops had killed between 90,000 and 150,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, children, the sick, the elderly. Who then are the vulnerable deserving our protection?
The Questions for DebateMembers of the extreme right have hijacked the Republican Party and promoted policies that are repugnant to most Americans, inconsistent with scientific evidence, and in violation of ethical principles. This has been deemed "sexual McCarthyism," in which those who do not espouse the extreme views of the party leaders are censored or excluded from participation.
Should the President have the right, or the power, to misrepresent the truth, to change and/or cover up scientific data that prove his policies are wrong, in order to push an agenda that causes harm?
Should the President have the right, or the power, to place his personal ideology above medical and ethical standards?
How can anyone justify thinking that a minor affair with an intern is worthy of impeachment, but see no problem with misrepesenting the facts in order to kill thousands?
