Thursday, December 08, 2011

Being There

One of my commenter's has stated I am overly leftist on the decision in which the White House over ruled the Federal Drug Administration Scientists and said Plan B morning after birth control could not be made available to those under 17 years of age with out a prescription.  Certainly, I don't like the idea of 14 year olds getting this over the counter, but when I look at the problem of teenage single mothers I think it makes sense.  If the parents of these boys and girls don't do their job on instruction for use of contraceptives then we end up paying the freight on unwanted kids.

This is the second time that the Obama White House has told scientists and experts to go screw them selves in the name of electoral calculations. Think of the clean air regulations that Obama halted from going into effect.  Whats a little global warming compared to electoral votes?  It makes one wonder what motivates the Cabinet Secretaries to stay on.  Both Lisa Jackson of the EPA and now Ms. Sebilius of of Health and Human Services have been gutted by the campaign managers for Obama.

During my tenure as a Senate confirmed appointee in the first Clinton Administration it became apparent to me that for the most part, people who took those positions really wanted to just be there.  It over rode their own best instincts and they were willing to do anything to hang on to their jobs.  I quit my job after having around in DC for about 18 months because of Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt's continual caving in to the oil, gas, and livestock industries.  What was the point of sticking around?  I think I was the only one who did this at Interior.  Clinton's White House did some good things in the second term but none of it meant stepping on the fossil fuel industries feet or messing with the cowboys.

Maybe one just feels better in being there, but I can guarantee you that it isn't all that it is cracked up to be.


Vicki said...

I agree with the Obama Administration on this one and I am certainly not a fundamentalist. I have always supported choice for women. "Women" is the key word. Minors, children as young as 11 0r 12, who are subject to a crime (statuatory rape) ought to be connected to an adult (parent, doctor, Planned Parenthood counselor) to deal with their involvement in sexual intercourse, whether as a willing participant or unwilling. Yes, we have a problem with teenage pregnancy but the solution is not to provide "a magic pill" to take. Sex education and support services available today are so much better than when I was a teenager. Still, I waited until I was 18 before I had sexual intercourse probably because I had stronger self-respect than a lot of girls today. There is extreme peer pressure among young people and girls want to be loved so they are easy prey by sexual predators and young men and boys who pressure them to have sex. The easy availability of the morning after pill to minors is a message from society that you can engage in sex and not have consequences. Despite parental guidance and attention, this happens. I remember my 14 year old wanting a cell phone amid great peer pressure and I refused. The law required she be a certain age to make a contract. She got her older sister to get one for her despite my objections. Her actions resulted in her creating great personal debt she was not prepared to handle. Yes, kids will get the morning after pill from someone else. I still believe as a society, we should not condone and abet a crime by putting it out on the store shelf. Let kids under 17 go to a parent, a doctor, or Planned Parenthood to discuss their sexual involvement. They can get a prescription after counseling for contraceptives. The young girl who thinks she can engage in sex if she has a pill to avoid pregnancy is under a false sense of security. She doesn't understand the physiological or psychological consequences and a crime is going undetected. I'm sick of the kids taking charge of things theys are too young to handle. Adults need to remain in charge of the safety and welfare of our children.

Anonymous said...

Leftist in this case means intelligently weighing the many issues that bear on this, like Vicki does. Leftist means acknowledging reality: People have sex. That's what we're here for. As soon as they can, too.

It's been shown, too, that in populations under stress, fertility rates increase. The fact that more inner city young women bear children is a simple function of a biologic imperative for survival.

But there is always that urge, which conservatism plays on and gives in to, to pretend that people are not going to have sex, if only we pray, and be strict, and have home schooling, and have prayer in school and hope for the best.

The irony is that the more conservatism decimates the public education system, the more it outlaws and defunds sex education programs, the more it creates a world where only those who have lots of money can even afford an education, the fewer Jim Bacas and Vickis there will be and the more Michelle Bachmanns and New Mexicans we will have, and the more prevalent will become the reality they are so frightened of.